btw price starting to dip a little bit, we need something to prop up the news, something like that Dash will implement shadowcash.
Dash needs to implement Shadowcash technology and truly be anonymous.
- Thread starter xdashguy
- Start date
Haha, not a chance. Unfortunately, I think the price will tank and they'll continue living in denial, fruitlessly defending themselves. Mycelium, for example, will come out but the ios version will, once again, be rejected until dash is removed.
The cryptospace and fintech in general is hugely competitive.. with that in mind, dash development is much too slow. The ongoing budget system was a really good idea but it's fatally flawed; it's more like a grants system. The core team continue to work on things that no one voted for and the majority of MNOs are not brave enough to de-fund them e.g. aiding Coinfirm with AML / KYC compliance without a clear mandate. In addition, the new budget system will make it harder to de-fund multi-month proposals. Who voted for that? - no one. Standard response; "if you don't like it, fork it". The irony that the core team preach the wonders of block chain technology yet are not brave enough to make their code immutable and accountable by the MN network.
Last edited:
Here is a recent testament of the great and usable current mixing solution of Dash: https://www.reddit.com/r/dashpay/comments/578xir/dark_send_stalled/
I agree that Privatesend is not the best / easiest to use / fastest option out there BUT it's the simplest and easiest to review / hardest to make smth wrong tech I know of so far. There are pros in Ring Signatures like non-interactivity as well as cons like bloating utxo set indefinitely. My largest concerns about RS are:
1) it's a very new crypto afaik which might have internal vulnerabilities;
2) implementation vulnerabilities are very much possible https://decentralize.today/monero-had-the-same-bug-as-shadow-33a86ddeac2e#.b9x86rdhj even if you have a cryptographer or a few in your team.
I'm not a cryptographer myself - I can understand some concepts, can read related code, but not to review it to find some crazy issues which afaik requires some very specific knowledge how things should be implemented. So for me to review this to make sure it's designed properly, it really works as designed and that there are no more flaws is way beyond my knowledge in that space. If someone could find us a good cryptographer I guess he (cryptographer) could help a lot to improve privacy in Dash, probably could even find some another (bitcoin-compatible) way to do so, like implementing TumbleBit on masternodes or smth like that, I don't know...
1) it's a very new crypto afaik which might have internal vulnerabilities;
2) implementation vulnerabilities are very much possible https://decentralize.today/monero-had-the-same-bug-as-shadow-33a86ddeac2e#.b9x86rdhj even if you have a cryptographer or a few in your team.
I'm not a cryptographer myself - I can understand some concepts, can read related code, but not to review it to find some crazy issues which afaik requires some very specific knowledge how things should be implemented. So for me to review this to make sure it's designed properly, it really works as designed and that there are no more flaws is way beyond my knowledge in that space. If someone could find us a good cryptographer I guess he (cryptographer) could help a lot to improve privacy in Dash, probably could even find some another (bitcoin-compatible) way to do so, like implementing TumbleBit on masternodes or smth like that, I don't know...
Great to finally get a core response on this. The radio silence was concerning.
I think most dashers share at least some reservations about the mixing solution. Personally, i find it clumsy as ive mention before. And our weakest feature.
That being said, the reason im sticking with Dash is that we have the governance system and development funds to change it in the future. You can't expect perfection at the beginning.
I think starting a public conversation about alternatives will be an important first step. It's not a sign of weakness but a sign of maturity that we look @ alternatives (even if we conclude mixing is the best solution afterall).
How about we establish a proposal to fund a respected crypographer to peer reciew possible alternatives?
We could continue with the current solution unless the review's outcome strongly recommends a change.
Well, review of alternative implementation could work partially imo for the reasons I already described: having some tech reviewed by some single person doesn't really guarantee anything in the first place (someone else can find vulnerability later), and you still have to implement tech properly but cryptographer != programmer in general and I guess there are not that much people in the world who are good at both. Having smth broken by someone proves weakness 100% however
As for funding some cryptographer for a new tech invention via proposal, in general, I think that you can pay someone to do their job but I don't believe that you can pay someone to invent things, it just doesn't work that way imo. But setting up a bounty for a wider circle of people to provide some financial incentive in addition to initial curiosity could work probably. This way everyone participating would submit their work and review the work of others which is 2-in-1 win
(if there will be more than one person participating of course )
3000000 yes to that! But you should hire a cryptographer == programmer..
Why? If this is true, then we are living in a bad world! This is unfair! I hate living in that world!
Take me down to the paradise city, where the programmers are also cryptographers!!
Take me home, oh won't you please take me home!!!
Last edited:
Zerocoin tech is another option as well and it's more peer reviewed and works with Bitcoin core.
agree and would add, all of these 'options' involve essentially breaking the public ledger nature of Bitcoin / Dash, lowering the usability and scalability, and making it a lot harder to build a mainstream currency because you can't use the chain as an open ledger. It's a give and take whereby the stronger privacy you want the less usable and scalable your currency is. If you look at all these solutions where 'respected cryptographers' are trying to architect cryptos, usability and scalability is far worse than Bitcoin, our goal is to be far more scalable and usable than Bitcoin and this is really going in the other direction.Well, review of alternative implementation could work partially imo for the reasons I already described: having some tech reviewed by some single person doesn't really guarantee anything in the first place (someone else can find vulnerability later), and you still have to implement tech properly but cryptographer != programmer in general and I guess there are not that much people in the world who are good at both. Having smth broken by someone proves weakness 100% however
As for funding some cryptographer for a new tech invention via proposal, in general, I think that you can pay someone to do their job but I don't believe that you can pay someone to invent things, it just doesn't work that way imo. But setting up a bounty for a wider circle of people to provide some financial incentive in addition to initial curiosity could work probably. This way everyone participating would submit their work and review the work of others which is 2-in-1 win
Zerocoin -> Zerocash -> Zcash is another interesting concept BUT it has a very controversial initial setup step where you have to trust that single key generated in this step (which is there for the whole lifetime of the network) is not compromised. They say that they have developed some very strong procedure to guarantee this will not happen but having such a single point of failure imo it's only the matter of time and financial incentive until it's broken.
The way I understand it is that Zerocash has this problem but Zerocoin does not. Correct me if I'm wrong!
Edit: Oops no Zerocoin also has this issue except Zcoin uses RSA parameters.
Zcoin uses parameters generated 25 years ago from the RSA Factoring Challenge. At projected computing capacity, it will be safe to use for many more decades. By then, Zcoin can port its parameters to a new cryptographic scheme. Admittedly, the RSA has not been a great company in recent years, with revelations of the RSA collaborating with the NSA. But the keys to the RSA Factoring challenge were generated in 1991, early in the RSA days when the creators of the RSA algorithm still had a high amount of control over their company. On the other hand, there is a strong mitigating factor in the unlikely scenario of a compromised Zcoin setup: everybody could still see that Zcoin’s money supply checks out. In contrast, if Zcash’s setup were compromised, a hyper-inflated money supply could go completely undetected.
Zcash relies on the assumption that all actors in the parameter generation do not collude together. As long as there is one honest actor, then everything is fine. If not, then they could double spend / do anything they want with Zcash. Just as there has been worry over Zcoin’s parameter setup, there has been some worry about Zcash‘s setup.
However, in our opinion, Zcash‘s setup will be fine, as there will most likely be at least one honest person. Both setups are not ideal, but still workable.
Zcash relies on the assumption that all actors in the parameter generation do not collude together. As long as there is one honest actor, then everything is fine. If not, then they could double spend / do anything they want with Zcash. Just as there has been worry over Zcoin’s parameter setup, there has been some worry about Zcash‘s setup.
However, in our opinion, Zcash‘s setup will be fine, as there will most likely be at least one honest person. Both setups are not ideal, but still workable.
Last edited:
My non-expert-at-all, but totally a consumer, two cents...
1. I have long said I would rather see a future version of Dash make instant transactions and private sends totally automatic (not options). If they needed to build this into transaction fees, fine.
2. I see there are some good points about wanting both worlds, where you choose to be private or not. Makes sense.
3. So make it automatic unless you choose an option to de-anonymize (the flip side of how it is now, where you have de-anonymization automatic and merely a choice to anonymize, which one mistake by a user wanting anonymity in one of many of their transactions could be disastrous). Instant transactions I still say, should be automatic, as I don't see any point to an option to not send instantly.
4. I don't care how these two things are implemented. The techies can figure this out. I will read the debates, then decide who is most acting in the interest of consumers by giving them automatic instant transactions and automatic anonymity (with an option to de-anonymize, which I now realize should be an option, unless of course you have to choose, for technical reasons concerning feasibility of the technology's possible changes, between automatic anonymity without an option to de-anonymize or the status quo anonymity, which I would then choose the former without hesitation...I would sacrifice those times when people want to de-anonymize rather than sacrifice eventual more foolproof anonymity for the entirety of the network and ALL its participants being automated). I have always believed this would be the end result. If it isn't, I won't be happy with it. Not that it matters what I think, but just saying. What happens when I am unhappy (and maybe others)? I gave up on Bitcoin when the project stopped moving toward such ends. I am not happy Monero, ZCash, etc. are ahead (to my non-expert mind anyways) on automatic and total anonymity. However, I do see instant send as a greater feature (in terms of priority), and figured "well, they prioritized that solution first for merchant adoption reasons, which is smart, and then will focus their limited time and resources on automatic anonymization later". I still hope that is the case. If not, someone please say "we will never take measures to make anonymization features even better, either by making it automatic, or better assurances, or both" (and this includes some of the Masternodes arguments made in this thread about how MN operators, who are less than the number of MNs themselves, can easily be compromised by state attack - which is a large amount of my interest in this project, as someone concerned about state encroachment on individuals and their ability to live free of initiations of coercion by mafias euphemistically referred to as "governments" who extort, and euphemistically call it "tax", and who partly enforce things like the drug war by tracing transactions of people via various means). Although I agree instant send being first on the list of prioritized solutions, in terms of both development originally and in making it automatic, I am in no way willing to support a project which would not do all it could to make sure anonymity was also automatic at some point, and the MN runners were even more protected from state attacks (to include those very attacks undermining the entire network, let alone just messing with MN operators for other less network-corrupting reasons). And it is possible to argue, anonymity concerns I've listed might be the bigger priority, before it's too late, and instant send development I currently favor being the priority should not be the first priority over anonymity concerns.
5. Why is this a concern for me? Not just philosophy about the state, I can tell you. It's also pragmatic. Users want instant send to be automatic. Anyone I explain the technology too, who grasps what I'm explaining (Evolution will make this easier on me, to be sure), asks why the instant sends aren't automatic. It IS a major consumer want, at least in my anecdotal experience (which I confess is not the same as truly knowing what the aggregate demand of all consumers is). Further, if the MN operators can be compromised, the state will inevitably do it, and in so doing will undermine the reputation of the network and destroy the coin for all intents of purposes. Why? Because if the state can do it, so can criminal organizations who already have expertise in extortion, kidnapping, ransoming, etc. The most statist person who likes the state coercing MN operators for, say, tax reasons, will still not want a coin that (other) mafias can exploit to the detriment of users or network runners (who, BTW, are behind the 2nd tier of the network and its cool capabilities original to Dash). Imagine it coming out one or more MN operators were compromised, by state or (other) mafia...MNs would be sold like crazy by any sensible person. Who would remain? Some intelligence service or law enforcement, organized criminals, etc. who then take advantage of the plummeting prices and slower or non-existent 2nd tier services to takeover or whatever they wanted to do with the coin. So, it seems if we want to really serve consumers and do so in a sustainable fashion long term, we would need automatic instant sends and better anonymity assurances (by way of automatic anonymity and/or more MN operator protections, either via increased anonymity for them or just a technology like other coins where they can't know things that would make them targets for such attacks). I suggest, if possible, making not only instant sends automatic, but also making anonymity automatic with an option to de-anonymize if possible (and if it is not possible, then just make it automatically anonymized, sacrificing the option to de-anonymize).
If anyone wants to correct me on my understanding of the tech as it stands, where it is already planned to go, or what is possible or not to do with it, please feel free to correct me/enlighten me, as I am no expert on the techie side and am open to constructive criticism concerning my assumptions. Thanks in advance for this, and thanks to all who read this post for their very valuable time.
1. I have long said I would rather see a future version of Dash make instant transactions and private sends totally automatic (not options). If they needed to build this into transaction fees, fine.
2. I see there are some good points about wanting both worlds, where you choose to be private or not. Makes sense.
3. So make it automatic unless you choose an option to de-anonymize (the flip side of how it is now, where you have de-anonymization automatic and merely a choice to anonymize, which one mistake by a user wanting anonymity in one of many of their transactions could be disastrous). Instant transactions I still say, should be automatic, as I don't see any point to an option to not send instantly.
4. I don't care how these two things are implemented. The techies can figure this out. I will read the debates, then decide who is most acting in the interest of consumers by giving them automatic instant transactions and automatic anonymity (with an option to de-anonymize, which I now realize should be an option, unless of course you have to choose, for technical reasons concerning feasibility of the technology's possible changes, between automatic anonymity without an option to de-anonymize or the status quo anonymity, which I would then choose the former without hesitation...I would sacrifice those times when people want to de-anonymize rather than sacrifice eventual more foolproof anonymity for the entirety of the network and ALL its participants being automated). I have always believed this would be the end result. If it isn't, I won't be happy with it. Not that it matters what I think, but just saying. What happens when I am unhappy (and maybe others)? I gave up on Bitcoin when the project stopped moving toward such ends. I am not happy Monero, ZCash, etc. are ahead (to my non-expert mind anyways) on automatic and total anonymity. However, I do see instant send as a greater feature (in terms of priority), and figured "well, they prioritized that solution first for merchant adoption reasons, which is smart, and then will focus their limited time and resources on automatic anonymization later". I still hope that is the case. If not, someone please say "we will never take measures to make anonymization features even better, either by making it automatic, or better assurances, or both" (and this includes some of the Masternodes arguments made in this thread about how MN operators, who are less than the number of MNs themselves, can easily be compromised by state attack - which is a large amount of my interest in this project, as someone concerned about state encroachment on individuals and their ability to live free of initiations of coercion by mafias euphemistically referred to as "governments" who extort, and euphemistically call it "tax", and who partly enforce things like the drug war by tracing transactions of people via various means). Although I agree instant send being first on the list of prioritized solutions, in terms of both development originally and in making it automatic, I am in no way willing to support a project which would not do all it could to make sure anonymity was also automatic at some point, and the MN runners were even more protected from state attacks (to include those very attacks undermining the entire network, let alone just messing with MN operators for other less network-corrupting reasons). And it is possible to argue, anonymity concerns I've listed might be the bigger priority, before it's too late, and instant send development I currently favor being the priority should not be the first priority over anonymity concerns.
5. Why is this a concern for me? Not just philosophy about the state, I can tell you. It's also pragmatic. Users want instant send to be automatic. Anyone I explain the technology too, who grasps what I'm explaining (Evolution will make this easier on me, to be sure), asks why the instant sends aren't automatic. It IS a major consumer want, at least in my anecdotal experience (which I confess is not the same as truly knowing what the aggregate demand of all consumers is). Further, if the MN operators can be compromised, the state will inevitably do it, and in so doing will undermine the reputation of the network and destroy the coin for all intents of purposes. Why? Because if the state can do it, so can criminal organizations who already have expertise in extortion, kidnapping, ransoming, etc. The most statist person who likes the state coercing MN operators for, say, tax reasons, will still not want a coin that (other) mafias can exploit to the detriment of users or network runners (who, BTW, are behind the 2nd tier of the network and its cool capabilities original to Dash). Imagine it coming out one or more MN operators were compromised, by state or (other) mafia...MNs would be sold like crazy by any sensible person. Who would remain? Some intelligence service or law enforcement, organized criminals, etc. who then take advantage of the plummeting prices and slower or non-existent 2nd tier services to takeover or whatever they wanted to do with the coin. So, it seems if we want to really serve consumers and do so in a sustainable fashion long term, we would need automatic instant sends and better anonymity assurances (by way of automatic anonymity and/or more MN operator protections, either via increased anonymity for them or just a technology like other coins where they can't know things that would make them targets for such attacks). I suggest, if possible, making not only instant sends automatic, but also making anonymity automatic with an option to de-anonymize if possible (and if it is not possible, then just make it automatically anonymized, sacrificing the option to de-anonymize).
If anyone wants to correct me on my understanding of the tech as it stands, where it is already planned to go, or what is possible or not to do with it, please feel free to correct me/enlighten me, as I am no expert on the techie side and am open to constructive criticism concerning my assumptions. Thanks in advance for this, and thanks to all who read this post for their very valuable time.
Last edited:
My opinions:
1. Instant transactions are amazing, and are crucial to real-world, brick-and-mortar store adoption. The masternodes are needed for this, and is a service for which they should be (and are being) paid. Nothing needs to change in this regard.
2. Automatic anonymity, rather than having to "opt-in" to be anonymous, would be great, but not necessary. While this is not a priority, it actually does seem easy to implement at the wallet level.
3. Using something like ShadowCash style encryption for anonymization, rather than masternode mixing, is definitely preferable. The masternode resources could be reserved for Instant transactions, whereas anonymization can be done via automatic encryption. In those cases where the transaction is to be non-anonymous, perhaps some extra bit of information can be sent along, to indicate the sending address.
In my opinion, the above would make this the undisputed choice for "perfect coin."
1. Instant transactions are amazing, and are crucial to real-world, brick-and-mortar store adoption. The masternodes are needed for this, and is a service for which they should be (and are being) paid. Nothing needs to change in this regard.
2. Automatic anonymity, rather than having to "opt-in" to be anonymous, would be great, but not necessary. While this is not a priority, it actually does seem easy to implement at the wallet level.
3. Using something like ShadowCash style encryption for anonymization, rather than masternode mixing, is definitely preferable. The masternode resources could be reserved for Instant transactions, whereas anonymization can be done via automatic encryption. In those cases where the transaction is to be non-anonymous, perhaps some extra bit of information can be sent along, to indicate the sending address.
In my opinion, the above would make this the undisputed choice for "perfect coin."
Haha, good luck with that... it's already been made very clear that the core team are way too busy with Evo than to bother with pesky little things like privacy. In fact, the core team has been infiltrated and actively working to assist companies like Coinfirm in their quest to uncover user identities, relationships and behaviours. Not conspiracy theory, the facts are very easy to verify.
In my opinion, not strengthening the privacy features of Dash is quite naive. We should be prepared for Government crackdowns on crypto and masternodes in their current state pose a weak link because they are publicly known. Owners (smaller number than number of masternodes) can be coerced to keep logs and sell them, masternode owners can be prosecuted for arbitrary reasons (laundering money for example).
Also remember that for mixing to be truly effective there needs to be a lot of noise to hide between. Same idea goes for messaging apps being more secure if users not looking for absolute anonimity are still using it to populate the message database with ''noise'' so that people actually looking for anonimity have a bigger haystack they can hide in.. The bigger the haystack the harder it is to find the needle.
Turning on mixing by default would make the haystack bigger and therefore more secure to hide your anonymous transaction in and also speed up the process of mixing at the same time.
I'm not a super technical person, so I might be overlooking some technical aspects in which case I would gladly hear from people who can explain why the above is a bad idea. I just don't trust that our current privacy features are resilient enough for a highly motivated actor with deep pockets (Governments, intelligence agencies and the like).
Also remember that for mixing to be truly effective there needs to be a lot of noise to hide between. Same idea goes for messaging apps being more secure if users not looking for absolute anonimity are still using it to populate the message database with ''noise'' so that people actually looking for anonimity have a bigger haystack they can hide in.. The bigger the haystack the harder it is to find the needle.
Turning on mixing by default would make the haystack bigger and therefore more secure to hide your anonymous transaction in and also speed up the process of mixing at the same time.
I'm not a super technical person, so I might be overlooking some technical aspects in which case I would gladly hear from people who can explain why the above is a bad idea. I just don't trust that our current privacy features are resilient enough for a highly motivated actor with deep pockets (Governments, intelligence agencies and the like).
The developers/programmers need not stop working on other stuff. They need only agree that what we're asking for be a priority. If it is not, MNs should vote to do something about it. If that doesn't work, then we know the governance system is flawed severely. But to be sure, the concerns in this thread need addressed. Mass adoption is great, but we can't let that lead us away from anonymity and whatnot that will increasingly, over years to come, be a feature people want. The Shadow Economy (System D) will employ like 2/3rds of the world's workers by 2020...and it will continue to grow from there, as in 2020 it is expected to be a larger economy than the largest nation-state's on Earth. People need the anonymity. They will increasingly seek it. Monero isn't popular for no reason. Zcash isn't drawing so much attention for no reason. I still think Dash has the best stuff going, and I'm excited to see Evo launched sometime next year (hopefully), but things can get off the rails. If people focus on govt permission slips (compliance) as a means to mass adoption too much, then the coin becomes little more than a fast Bitcoin. Is that the intention? I don't think so, and hope not. I don't know about "infiltration"...if you have evidence, then name who it is and present it. Otherwise, let's not go all Alex Jonestown on the core team. But to be sure, I want to see this project to offer as good anonymity as other coins that specialize in that. It needs to move up on the priority list. I can see finishing work for the Evo release first, and even implementing automatic instant transactions first (if they agree this is a consumer want), as both will grow adoption for what this coin does so well, that other coins don't do; work for a everyday point-of-sale solution. But after that, anonymity features and lessons learned about them from the work of other projects should be used to implement Dash's own improved anonymity features. I'd hate to see this project go the way of selling out by refusing to do that, knowing what the consequences are for the users (even if it benefits the bottom of line of certain coin holders, MNs, etc.). My interest in this coin is not getting rich. It's getting freer while maybe making some money in the process.
If someone in the core makes an official statement on this concern, and says it is somewhere on the priority list after Evo, and maybe instant sends being made automatic, I'll be satisfied. No need to troll them, speak of unprovable or unfounded conspiracy theories, etc.
And if the core refuses to act on this, the MNs should vote to stop funding them. Replace them. This thing isn't bound to them, theoretically. Even Evan himself can be "fired", theoretically. Now, will that actually work, or is the governance a bit of slight of hand? That will be proven at that point or some other in the future. I feel good about far more of this project than I feel like it deserves criticism. But I don't want to pull punches either...if this thing goes the way of not improving anonymity features other coins have implemented that people seem to agree are more anonymous, after Evo and maybe any improvement to instant sends, then of course, I will start supporting one of those other projects and just try to get them to implement the instant transactions Dash has now or could have with improvements to its instant send tech.
The best coin will be the one that wins. But the best coin will be the one that adopts the best ideas from other coins. This coin has great features, like DGBB, MNs and the 2nd tier, the forthcoming Evo, instant sends, private sends, etc. But if another coin out-does this coin in anonymity, and this coin starts to move into a direction which forsakes further anonymity improvements, then the MNs have to stand up to the core. If that doesn't work, for whatever reason, then people like me are better off supporting a more anonymous project instead of trying to get Dash to implement anonymity improvements, and instead convince more anonymous projects to implement instant transactions, DGBB of their own, 2nd and so on tiers, and a better UI like Evo.
I'm not brand loyal. I'm quality loyal. So, let's see what the devs/core have to say, and if it isn't to our liking, let's see what the MNs do about it (assuming they can do something about it).
If someone in the core makes an official statement on this concern, and says it is somewhere on the priority list after Evo, and maybe instant sends being made automatic, I'll be satisfied. No need to troll them, speak of unprovable or unfounded conspiracy theories, etc.
And if the core refuses to act on this, the MNs should vote to stop funding them. Replace them. This thing isn't bound to them, theoretically. Even Evan himself can be "fired", theoretically. Now, will that actually work, or is the governance a bit of slight of hand? That will be proven at that point or some other in the future. I feel good about far more of this project than I feel like it deserves criticism. But I don't want to pull punches either...if this thing goes the way of not improving anonymity features other coins have implemented that people seem to agree are more anonymous, after Evo and maybe any improvement to instant sends, then of course, I will start supporting one of those other projects and just try to get them to implement the instant transactions Dash has now or could have with improvements to its instant send tech.
The best coin will be the one that wins. But the best coin will be the one that adopts the best ideas from other coins. This coin has great features, like DGBB, MNs and the 2nd tier, the forthcoming Evo, instant sends, private sends, etc. But if another coin out-does this coin in anonymity, and this coin starts to move into a direction which forsakes further anonymity improvements, then the MNs have to stand up to the core. If that doesn't work, for whatever reason, then people like me are better off supporting a more anonymous project instead of trying to get Dash to implement anonymity improvements, and instead convince more anonymous projects to implement instant transactions, DGBB of their own, 2nd and so on tiers, and a better UI like Evo.
I'm not brand loyal. I'm quality loyal. So, let's see what the devs/core have to say, and if it isn't to our liking, let's see what the MNs do about it (assuming they can do something about it).
Last edited:
Not conspiracy. It was Kot at the Warsaw Block meetup on 25 August 2016 (see budget and Dash Detailed interview) where this convenient Coinfirm-Dash relationship was drawn up. In other threads I've provided links to Coinfirm's two-way relationships with companies like ShapeShift and Vodafone, and they are attempting to track and amalgamate transactions between bitcoin and dash (and other alts further down the road).
Evan has previously made clear statements regarding the importance to fungibility. I've provided links elsewhere but a search for "Evan Duffield fungibility" should do the trick.
For me, dash's self-funding model is a stand-out differentiator. However, time has shown severe limitations. I now view this as nothing more than a system to issue grants, it has little or no influence over core development. Other cryptos such as NEM are starting to explore similar funding methods. I think in time, other coins will adopt advanced versions and eclipse dash.
BECAUSE CENTRALIZATION! CENSORSHIP! YOU EVIL CORE TEAM MEMBER!!!111
I know about fungibility and Evan's statements, and how essentially fungibility has a lot to do with anonymity. And I can agree we have no test case to prove the DGBB has the power to fundamentally steer the core away from something the MNs don't want (I don't recall a specific case of that). But Kot's Coinfirm thing wouldn't matter IF anonymity features are improved. I think Amanda's latest video spells out exactly why Dash is behind Zcash in anonymity. It's nice to see her presentation, because it also reminds us what is RIGHT with Dash compared to that project. NEM and other cryptos are going to adopt this technology of DGBB, but it will be some time before we see if it has any more or any less teeth than Dash's.
Coinfirm can only track what Dash makes possible for them to track, same as Zcash or Monero. The issue isn't trying to gain compliance to facilitate mass adoption, but not doing so by forsaking the direction of the project as it concerns anonymity.
So, let's give the core a chance here, to make a statement. That means be a little patient and give them time to discuss it among themselves. Maybe to this point, that conversation has been less of a priority. If we don't like their statement on the issue, let's see if indeed the DGBB has teeth, by allowing the MNs to change their minds and be able to fire them if they refuse. Lastly, if none of this goes our way, THEN we can consider dropping support long term for the project. I think any other reaction is overreaction and rash.
And let me say, I am not a concern troll, or troll of any kind, so I hope I wasn't included in that particular label. I'm trying to say these people raising issues have legitimate points, but may be overreacting or reacting too soon out of fear their concerns will not be addressed. If anything, I'm trying to be rational here. Fear is only rational when directly proportional to risk, relative to all other risks you face day to day. So, I want to pull that fear down a notch, back into proportion with risk, so it doesn't merely become concern trolling or FUD. I think the intentions of most of the people posting about legitimate anonymity issues shouldn't be simply dismissed as "trolling". If we do that, before you know it, all legitimate concerns become "trolling" and the entire project becomes insular based on hubris and an echo chamber of group think.
Last edited:
I think you're missing the point.
No one has found a way to improve on Dash's privacy without essentially breaking the currency for any kind of mainstream adoption.
The mixing solution will be improved so it's more usable, but implementing a 'stronger' privacy solution (i.e. crossing that line into a protocol-level private-ledger) produces a currency that is radically slower, less scalable, less usable, less accessible and more centralized than Bitcoin, i.e useless outside of small niche groups transacting between fullnodes in the long term - which basically means useless period, as small currencies don't have the liquidity / entropy / hashrate / node-count / price stability the small minority of users who actually want privacy will require (e.g. DNMs).
There are lots of options for 'privacy coins' that are taking that approach, it is hot right now purely with speculators same as 'dapps' were 6 months ago. and each one has zero chance at mainstream adoption outside of the crypto-speculator sandbox, IMO.
So to be clear, Dash's strategy at this stage is not to turn the ledger into a bloated, encrypted mess that no one can use without a desktop fullnode or audit to make sure that it's well distributed or heavily manipulated...Evolution's goal is to make p2p currencies accessible and usable by average users from any device in a decentralized way, i.e. without any kind of intermediary, so they can login with a user and buy online direct as easily as they do with centralized services like PayPal, and do this with an open ledger as per Satoshi's architecture plus our option to delete your transaction history in a trustless and decentralized way.
Privacy is a key feature, primarily for fungibility, secondarily for the tiny portion of actual users who want privacy, but not at the expense of preventing giving mainstream users what they want or giving us a chance to actually break out of the crypto sandbox and take p2p money somewhere that's useful to a large portion of the population, because if that's not the goal then what's the point.
Trying to push Dash towards these ridiculous privacy 'solutions' is breaking Dash...because an open-ledger is key to all the features mainstream users need.
Last edited:
I see what you are getting at, and it does make sense. That said, however, I am thinking that it might be possible to have Dash have certain transactions/coins/addresses use the already established methods already in place, but also have other transactions/coins/addresses which are encrypted at the protocol level, and of course, the ability to move coins between these encrypted and unencrypted addresses. In other words, for most people, most of the time, the current situation is actually fine -- but it would be great to have some built-in and totally trustless way to send/receive coins in a completely private way, at protocol level. (And these special trustlessly-private transactions would not have to involve instant send, but could take place at normal speed.)
You can see that I am not delving at all into the nitty-gritty technical details here, just describing in a general way what I think would be feasible way to achieve trustless privacy in parallel with the current system...and I know, of course, that this would take work and time. I also know that such work and time would be worth it in the end, as we would have a coin which would be simply unsurpassed in terms of its privacy and usability.
Hi Andy, in the most recent core conference call Evan mentioned a new "quicker, lighter, better privacy implementation" for evo. He stated it would only take a few seconds and also involve mixing. (1:09:00)
Can you elaborate a little on how it differs from the existing mixing implementation?
thnx
You hit it all. If you keep pushing the shadowcash style encryption for Dash, I'll keep pushing the InstantSend addition with the Shadowcash guys. Lightning might also have instant/anonymous transactions too. And yet another a top 50 coin has both instant/mixing features. Who knows what ends up as the perfect coin.
As for zcoin vs zcash. Zcoin bloats the blockchain - similar to Dash but only takes about an hour to mix. Transactions are still the speed of.....bitcoin. Zcash bloats the computer memory sending a transaction (4GB of ram), but keeps the blockchain clean. One of them is planning instant transactions in the future. I don't think either are magic bullets. We need an always anonymous sending coin - no option to not mix. Otherwise, you can't have fungibility with coinfirm now monitoring the mixed vs unmixed coins.
Hopefully, Dash can focus on something other than budget coding and more on features users actually can benefit from. At this point, I see just a few months left before a coin good enough becomes dominant. 6-12 months waiting on Evolution is probably not going to make it in time.
I pretty much agree with everything you said...except DON'T push InstantSend with the ShadowCash guys, or anyone else! I want Dash to win! LOL
In all seriousness though, Dash does have a really incredible dev team. If anyone can pull it off it is them...provided they focus on IMPORTANT features: trustless-privacy, instant transactions, and fungiblity. Actually, Dash is already, in my opinion, the king in terms of features, but I do see room for improvement...and sincerely feel that NOT making such improvements will ultimately mean that someone else will.
Ethereum is working on much faster confirmations and zero knowledge transactions. I'm not supporting Ethereum, am just saying there are some serious upcoming competitors.
Why no one has cited Vcash? People in this thread are talking (mainly the devs) like it would be impossible to have a stronger and instant anonimity without breaking the scalability and that by doing it would "produce a currency that is radically slower " but we see it's not the case with Vcash, it has instant anon, and instant transactions - even faster than InstantSend. We are in better position right now than Vcash, we already are working on DAPI and we already have the DGBB, that they are working on it too. So, I would ask, why can't we take a look at that coin?