Nope.
I want to have the choice to do either way without being restricted by the technology.
Dash needs to implement Shadowcash technology and truly be anonymous.
- Thread starter xdashguy
- Start date
I want to have the choice to do either way without being restricted by the technology.
Because cash(=paper money) belongs to the central government, and if the tax evation increases, one day the government may decide to replace the current government paper money with a tottaly new one (or alternatively with an inflation money). So whatever cash you own in that case will become useless. Or the government may even tottaly replace the current paper money with an electronic one, and this will result paper money to become obsolete and the tax evation to be impossible.
And of course another reason to choose dash is because dash is the only coin that has governance. In dash , the people can VOTE the taxes. In dash, there is no central government that decides what the taxes will be. In dash, people decide how big or how small the taxes may be (of course they should first pass an appopriate proposal in the budget that will regulate the tax rules and procedures). And of course dash people could decide to vote for the appropriate (and desired) taxes (in between 0% taxes and 100% taxes), by voting with numbers.
When I say "the people" I mean the masternodes, of course. But this can also change, as history teaches to us. The dashers may decide to allow more people to be able to vote. This can also be a decision of an appropriate proposal that may pass from the budget. If the masternodes refuse to allow more people to vote in the budget, and if society obviously needs more people to be able to vote there, then a dash fork may appear. A dash fork, with a similar to dash technology, but with different initial values.
And when I say "people can pass a proposal in the budget" I mean they can pass it only in case the core team allows them to do it. Because there is no mechanism in the current governance system of dash that can force the core team to obey to the decisions of the people (a.k.a the masternodes).
This can only be done if dash was written as a reflective code that can be voted. So yes, dash governance system is far from perfect, but this is all we have right now, there is nothing else.
Last edited:
@BenTucker, although you might not see it, there is a reason why people might think you are an alt account for someone else, because of your posting style and because there has been one individual in particular who we already know for a fact has created several alt accounts here. You're welcome to try and prove to people that you are not an alt account, but if you don't want to go that way just ignore the insinuations.
If you could please concisely summarize the point you are trying to make or the question you are trying to ask, it might help towards getting a better response.
If you could please concisely summarize the point you are trying to make or the question you are trying to ask, it might help towards getting a better response.
I thought the whole reason we want to use cash (or digital cash for that matter) is to work around these agencies, not to have proof of what a good boy we have been.
In the near future a lot of countries will reduce cash/forbid cash for exactly this reason, its anonymity.
And the alternative, credit-cards / online banking is not anonymous, quite the opposite, they are 100% transparent.
Wouldn't it be great if someone would invent a crypto-currency which could, depending on its intended usage, either be anonymous OR transparent?
So do I...but then paying taxes and whatnot wouldn't be inevitable at all. That would logically imply the ability to be entirely anonymous (or as much as possible) and avoid state and (other) criminal coercion (like blackmailers or kidnappers or extortionists who might try to compromise MNs and thereby users, to figure out who has what, as to know who to coerce for a payday). The state isn't the only threat here...if they can de-anonymize, so can criminals like that.They can't issue secret warrants like the state, but they can coerce or bribe an employee or employees in sensitive positions to gain the info they need to carry out crimes against larger accounts.
The technology would restrict this (the option we both want) if it is not improved (not immediately...I realize priorities are in place with Evo and whatnot for a very good reason).
I want to say too...why is that the only part of my comment you bothered to address? The main debate was ignored entirely.
Lastly, I know you do a shitload of work around here...I lurk the forums often. I'm not trying to make it personal, just wanting to say it is only inevitable to take that govt c*** in the a** if the anonymity features are not improved to mask info on MNs which could compromise them and therefore their owners/operators and the users they have served or will serve. I know this can work against mass adoption speed due to non-compliance with state dictates, but if the project has to allow itself to be a possible tool for the state to coerce people to be mass adopted, it's already using an unethical and flawed plan. You think they won't just ban Dash if it starts to compete too much with legal tender in fiat? They can make it a prison sentence to have it on your device or to accept it! Enforceable? Doesn't matter...fear is all they need to kill use by all but the bravest users, like anarchists (me being one of those). All your compliance will go right out the window then for sure. And what will you do to TRY to stop or postpone it? LOBBY...legally bribe politicians via the Treasury. It's the only way to TRY to stop or postpone it if the project gets that adopted to make the central banks and state feel threatened. If you enter this game of theirs, you will lose. The only win is ethical...be cash, be a mutual bank, be a payment processor (compliant or not), be a replacement for credit cards, etc., etc. None of that should necessitate ignoring points of failure for anonymity. It's only a matter of time before the whole thing is largely de-anonymized if nothing is done. I think you know this, as per the first comment and seemingly conceding to the state its extortion payments (taxes).
I'm not so likely to take that d*** up the a** and thank them for it, myself.
Anyways, even if we strongly disagree, keep up all the good work you do. I know you work very hard on this project, and this is not an attempt to ignore that. I'm just very blunt.
To all of you, that dream about anonymity, I repeat once again.
Anonymity does not reside at the application layer, but at the routing layer!!!
Dash run as an application, so however hard the core team tries, complete anonymity in dash is impossible. For all those who seek anonymity, the first step is to avoid the BGP routing protocol. Which means you should not use any routing path that is BGP compatible. But if you do this, how can you communicate with the rest of the world? Everything, the whole internet is based on BGP.
Do you want anonymity? Then you have to propose in the budget for a dash router to be developed, that will use a secure routing protocol and secure routing paths. Secure paths should be a prerequisite of this router not only in the network layer, but maybe also in the datalink layer and even in the physical layer. This is the only way. In practice a secure network of wireless fiber optics should be created among dashers.
Last edited:
We can cross that bridge when we come to it...we aren't there yet at all. I'd bet in 10 years, there will still be paper fiat everywhere. And if Dash uses mob rule (the democratic method) to tax people, I'm out. I'm not going to be taxed that way. You can jail me or kill me first. I'm done with compulsory payments (where possible) to institutions who murder and extort. I am not funding evil anymore if I can avoid it. Even my consumer decisions are weighed for relative ethical value. If Dash sees itself as a future way to tax people, tell me now...so I can tell everyone in the world that will listen and abandon this project, light speed style. And you point out a few things there, via sarcasm, worth looking at.
I think Evo solves a lot of the issues if partial votes are given to interest bearing account holders, essentially meaning users, if they outnumber opposed MNs sufficiently, can overrule them. THAT is good. Taxes? Nope. Bad. Just bad. Extortion (payment on the threat of physical or financial/economic reprisal) is still extortion, even if done on a large scale and convincing many of the sheep it is "necessary" and "just". You don't change reality by changing words used to describe that reality.
I, again, will expose myself on Facebook under my real name (which is not Ben Tucker, as I said), if anyone cares to do as I ask and show here that I am not but one person. Another poster also asked to be exposed to stop the nonsense we're all sock accounts. Do it....I dare you. Otherwise, it's conspiratard bunch of nonsense to suggest we're the same person. I'm daring you guys to expose we're different people. I want you to. There will be no complaints from me on that. I will help, as I said, by posting to my social media account, which is under my real name. And I already exposed myself there anyways...when the Dash FB page posted about my post at Ron Paul Forums, I told them it was me under my real name there. So, conspiracy is just conspiracy, and calling everything "FUD" people don't agree with is getting old (someone told me last night, and I can link to it, that they shy away from this project now because of that very attitude and illogical tactic to shutdown debate or try and ad hominem/guilt by association critics to ruin their credibility).he is ben tucker
i know him from back in the day
I've seen actual FUD spreading...I also oppose it. This is not what this is. Feel free to expose me to help prove it.
Last edited:
I can see why, and don't care. It's insulting and illogical if no evidence is presented beyond "I have a feeling he's the same guy". It's just a way to discredit someone instead of addressing their points, period. The insinuations wouldn't bother me if it wasn't being used to replace debate on this serious ass topic.
How in the hell did this above quoted comment get labeled trolling by someone?! lol...the troll is the one who thinks THAT is trolling.
Which is why we're having this discussion. The current anonymity has a major point of failure to that goal being realized. You said it was "inevitable" people would be found out and have to pay extortion (taxes), which logically implied you might not want the anonymity part quite as much as the transparent part. So, join our side of the debate if you think otherwise.
And even if this is the case, can we focus on the existing point of failure already being debated? We have a known problem with MNs having info on them that can compromise operators, and therefore users. One thing at a time. We need not solve this issue all at once or with 100% perfection. Also, aren't other currencies more compatible and usable with things like I2P and Tor? Not that those are foolproof, but it helps, from my understanding. But again, that's a later concern. We have a HUGE concern right here and right now with MNs not being blinded, in terms of info they contain, to info that can get MN operators charged with money laundering, and thereby can get them in a headlock with the law and cause them to compromise the MN or the users or whatever.
I would agree, we can further improve anonymity in other areas too...but this one is huge. It compromises the whole anonymity feature. It can turn the tech into a tool of state oppression (helping identify who "owes" taxes, for example) without intending to be that. Good points, but let's not spin this into a thread about general anonymity. There are particular issues in this thread and they need addressed.
Taxes are not necesseraly evil. Taxes are used by the state in order to protect its residents, and in order to give some basic services that everyone should have. No society can exist without taxes. And if there is no taxes, there is no money. Money is created in order to support taxation. You cannot separate money from taxes, money is a tax tool. The allocated budget of dash (10%) is also a form of taxation. So, as long as the abolition of taxes is impossible (because this will result the abolition of the society) the important thing is who decides about the taxes and whether this decision is made in a centralized (parliamentary) or in a decentralized (direct democratic) way.
Last edited:
Taxes are compulsory payments by definition, with threats of violence to back them. It's just extortion. Changing the name of it and calling the mafia who runs the protection racket "govt" doesn;t change that. Thereby, all taxes are just extortion, and thereby unethical in a normative sense. Further, in a consequentialist sense, it is illogical to say threatening innocent people with extortion increases their individual utility, and since society is just a bunch of individuals who interact with each other peacefully (mostly, as a rule), i. e. pro-social behavior and not antisocial behavior (like extortion), extorting the masses cannot lead to an increase in societal utility.
You act as if their protection racket is not a racket or coercive monopoly. Mafias of the usual sort also protect people in this regional monopolist form...the only difference is scale and laws that condone or ban it for the particular group. The idea I can threaten innocent people with violence if they don't pay me for protection, and that they are not allowed to out-compete me in this service, and they can't hire an alternative therefore (even if they don't like the service, see the quality as shit, see the prices rightly as monopolist and gouged, and see coercive monopolies have less transparency, and therefore less accountability) and it be "ethical" and not just a protection racket is nonsense. Sorry...there is no logic to that belief.
Let the local mafia hit you up for protection money. Even if they do a great job of protection, it's of no consequence, given you have nothing to really compare it to to know if it does a good, cheap, high quality, high transparency, high accountability job or not. This isn't a political philosophy debate on taxation though...it's on the purpose of the tech. And if the purpose is to facilitate taxation by a state or other entity, you can call that "moral" all you like, but it's not. Just because a nationalist cult which has you brainwashed, like we all were, to believe it is good (via civic religion, i.e. pledge is the prayer we brainwash kids with before they are even old enough to know what govt is or a republic is, etc., the flag is the religious symbol they pray too, the anthem in the hymn, the group acts of submission at kids games, like pro sports, are subsidized by the state to help groom the kids and keep the adults practicing the civic religion, etc.) doesn't mean it is indeed good. All tyranny is fashionable and mass accepted in its time. Chattel slavery was popular and thought necessary and good...until it wasn't.
ALL taxes are unethical, period. There is no consistently logical ethical theory which can say otherwise. To say so, would mean all extortion can be justified via some normative or utilitarian analysis, not just when its called "tax" and when the taxer is called "govt" (the test of universalism in ethics). Hence, the Founders called govt "a necessary evil". They acknowledged the evil you deny. I question the necessity is my difference with them on that point. How much money a year does the state spend making itself unnecessary? How is it when tech has made many things govt does not necessary for govt to do (like mail), that the govt keeps doing those things and even expanding things they do? Think about it.
No offense, but I'm an ethical theorist. I developed a methodology outside of normative/consequentialist methodology (my circumstantialist analysis), and also came up with an entirely original way to arrive at an ethical universal (not that theories within ethics are not subjective...only the universal they must be based on to make them logically consistent and based on valid premises is objective)....which I call the SLOET, but which has many other names, as it is had been discovered by others via different methods. Using just basic epistemological and metaphysical premises which can be shown to be valid, and consistent logic, I arrive at a sound conclusion in ethics. It's the only way in philosophy to arrive at a sound conclusion. I can point out invalid premises or inconsistent logic, as I did above, when anyone claims the state is justified/ethical. The state, by definition, refuses to acknowledge the ethical universal or respect the subjective ethical theories built on top of it.
And I can also use the language of Egoists (amoralists) to get them to agree (and have) to the same conclusions without calling them "ethics". So, regardless, individual autonomy being sacrosanct for the non-victimizer is not negotiable in ethics or amoralism. There's no way to deny the evil of the state or its extortion (tax) schemes, or those of competing smaller organized crime groups (the other mafias who aren't powerful enough to build a cult of legitimacy around themselves and legalize their crimes while calling all competing criminals' acts "crime").
And there is no basic service, not even roads, that isn't already done by someone other than govt somewhere. Highways, side streets...there is already evidence those things happen without the state or corrupt the process and fill the pockets of the Rulers and their crony friends. Only defense is largely a monopsony, and only law/courts are largely monopolized in the dispute resolution market. But we know law and defense predates the state by 8,000 years, thanks to anthropology, so there is no reason empirically or logically to believe only a state can do those things, and that we need it done in monopolist form.
You see the central banking cartel the Rulers grant its crony bank buddies is not necessary...now realize everything they do is like that. If people want it en masse via aggregate demand, it will exist. If they do not, they why do you want the state to do it and call it "necessary"? Think it through. I won't debate this further, as it is a total distraction in the thread. You want to read my writings on the state and anarchism, I will PM you private links to my FB page where I have tons of essays stored...or you can wait until they are compiled into a book which is coming out in 2017 (I'll give you a free copy, of course).
And money predates taxes (compulsory payments)...the idea it is a tax tool is false historically. It's a medium of exchange. LABOR was synonymous with TAX in Ancient Egypt, not money. You were temporarily enslaved until you could pay off what you owed the Ruler there if you couldn't pay the tax bill. It amounted to about 30-40% of total production output of the slave. See, percentage taxing is just a indirect way of enslaving you...they still are taking the fruits of YOUR labor by force. Either of them has the same result, it just APPEARS more civil the percentage way. But rest assured, whether you are a chattel slave or a tax slave...the result is the same. You have to let someone else have the fruits of your labor by force. The percentage is arbitrary...the principle is tax or no tax. So, when does tax become slavery then, to you, since you do not think it to be a form of forced labor (and the most common definition of slavery is forced labor)? 100%? 99? 67.3? How about 2%? See...the percentage doesn't matter; any non-zero amount is forced labor. And you "not minding" to pay is not relevant either....you have no choice. A man who breaks into a woman's house to rape her is no less evil and an attempted rapist if she decides she's horny and wants to willingly have sex with him. She had no choice, so he's still evil and a problem. She's just a sick person well adjusted to a sick situation.
See, being well adjusted to an insane or sick society is not evidence of mental health. It's evidence of the opposite. Statists are merely brainwashed into a cult like we all were...a very evil and insane cult. Deprogram, like we did, and become an anarchist. The state is not real...it's just people abusing other people and brainwashing them to love their abuse (thinking of it as good, benign, or necessary). It's just a faith (authoritarianism), and the political class are just parasites living off of our excess productivity, ever since the agrarian revolution started about 6,000 years ago. I can, again, give you essays and videos for days which tear apart in detail every single argument you can possibly put forth for the state. We've been at this for a couple centuries, and I've been at it myself for like 10 years now.
People aren't generally born or raised as anarchists...they read their way out of the cult of authoritarianism/statism/nationalism.
Last edited:
This happens in most of the state-types, this is true. But in a Direct Democracy state nobody can abuse you, as long as you have your vote. Because your vote holds the power to repeal anyone who is trying to abuse you.
Just repeat all of your speech, having in mind the case where everyone holds an equal vote and has an equal power when deciding about the rules. Most of your arguments that are valid in most of the state types, are invalid in the specific case of the Direct Democracy state.
In a direct democracy state the taxation is not coercion, it is a compromise, it is a form of donation to the state. You did not address my main argument, what about the percentage of the budget allocation in dash? Especially in the case where this percentage is voted using numbers, is this tax considered as a coercion, or as a compromise?
Last edited:
From what I've seen around here, before we can seriously discuss anonymity, we need to out all those that keep fighting this issue. We need to name and shame all of them, and I'm starting with Kot because he's the one that conspired with Coinfirm. From this poll (albeit a small sample), 90%+ of people here want greater anonymity yet there is zero coming from core.
All those saying no to anonymity or advocating transparency by default, they need to be known and cast out so that the remainder of us can at least try to get down to business.
All those saying no to anonymity or advocating transparency by default, they need to be known and cast out so that the remainder of us can at least try to get down to business.
This thread has shown more than the failure of anonymity in Dash but the failure of the governance system. We can see from this poll that community highly values privacy / anonymity / fungibility (all related concepts). However, this concept is not being taken seriously by the governing body (core). This indicates a large failure in the governance system where actual direction of the project is not being reflected by the community desires but instead by a totalitarian few.
You can see in this thread where any pro-privacy person such as myself have been subject to attacks and inferences that they are spammers, trying to undermine the community, etc. If Dash spent half the time listening to the community as it spends in defending stances that the community does not want, then this coin would actually go somewhere.
Let's hope Dash improves. As I already posted in another thread, I sold my coins. I have my eye on future Bitcoin technology (lightening network, side chains, nimblewimble, tumblebit) that can improve privacy and current bitcoin technology that aleady offers superior anonymity than Dash (joinmarket, coinshuffle). As far as alts, VCash as pointed out by solar miner I believe is quickly surpassing Dash in features. It also has a masternode system, superior security and anonymity, and soon to have governance system. In addition, it is currently alpha-ing a ZeroLedger system which allows blockchain-less mobile wallets synced across devices. Essentially providing most of the benefits of Evolution. Its main drawback is it is based on peercoin and not bitcoin.
The message should be clear to Dash. Listen to the community or fall off into irrelevance. That is my opinion. I love Dash, so I hope it listens and actually does something. Not like the coinblinding that was promised 1.5 years ago that never came. Or how about the "Privacy" section Evolution paper that was left blank in the white paper because evan cared so little about it he didn't even bother to fill in the section. The direction of this coin is on a bad path. The community is trying to signal this with the poll results but I fear that no one is listening.
You can see in this thread where any pro-privacy person such as myself have been subject to attacks and inferences that they are spammers, trying to undermine the community, etc. If Dash spent half the time listening to the community as it spends in defending stances that the community does not want, then this coin would actually go somewhere.
Let's hope Dash improves. As I already posted in another thread, I sold my coins. I have my eye on future Bitcoin technology (lightening network, side chains, nimblewimble, tumblebit) that can improve privacy and current bitcoin technology that aleady offers superior anonymity than Dash (joinmarket, coinshuffle). As far as alts, VCash as pointed out by solar miner I believe is quickly surpassing Dash in features. It also has a masternode system, superior security and anonymity, and soon to have governance system. In addition, it is currently alpha-ing a ZeroLedger system which allows blockchain-less mobile wallets synced across devices. Essentially providing most of the benefits of Evolution. Its main drawback is it is based on peercoin and not bitcoin.
The message should be clear to Dash. Listen to the community or fall off into irrelevance. That is my opinion. I love Dash, so I hope it listens and actually does something. Not like the coinblinding that was promised 1.5 years ago that never came. Or how about the "Privacy" section Evolution paper that was left blank in the white paper because evan cared so little about it he didn't even bother to fill in the section. The direction of this coin is on a bad path. The community is trying to signal this with the poll results but I fear that no one is listening.
It's not a conspiracy. If Dash is ever going to become widely adopted, companies like Coinfirm are an inevitability. It would be naive to think that Dash can somehow squeak by and gain mass adoption while all the merchants who adopt Dash will suddenly stop caring about regulatory compliance and covering their own ass. The difference between mixed coins and unmixed coins in Dash is not the cataclysmic gap that some people are blowing it up to be, threatening the fabric of the currency and undermining everything we all hold dear. Especially when mixing is easy to do and relatively common, the risk assessment is not something that I am concerned about. If Coinfirm can help merchants be more likely to accept Dash than to not accept it at all, then I'm for it.
That is not correct. Shadowcash is not necessary to be implemented. I recommended it for reasons outlined in this thread (it is already built). However, if Dash wants to implement their own, then that is no problem either. The point is, it needs to be an actual anonymizing feature and not a weak, problemantic, insecure, exploitable coinjoin implementation. What people are upset about is that Dash's "anonymity" is not good enough (for reasons outlined in this thread) and that Dash is not making it a first priority which is why I stated "critical" in the poll question.
That means 29 people think it is CRITICAL, not just nice to have, important, etc, but absolutely critical.
I still think it's misleading. If you ask if the governance system is critical or if security is critical or if vendor adoption is critical or if instant/secure transactions are critical you will get a sea of yes votes. Asking if anonymity and fungibility is critical is not the same thing as asking if it should be the number one priority out of all other possible things. It is also definitely not the same thing as asking if people are dissatisfied with the current team's efforts and the direction of the project with respect to anonymity.
Yep, add yourself to the list of people that are not helping with this. Fuck coinfirm and anyone that wants to defend them. It's one thing that companies like Coinfirm exist, entirely another that people such as yourself are willing to defend them. The fact is, dash core are actively assisting coinfirm - to the point of actually supplying hardware! - and not one MNO agreed to this "relationship".
Let's just say, for example, that we put this same poll question as a formal proposal, would you accept the result?
@xdashguy maybe you could do this as a formal proposal? - I will reimburse you. I think it's time the core team put up or shut up. Let's be absolutely clear here; Evan loves to highlight how dash MNOs agreed to a 2MB block increase, this is no different; both proposals (Evan vs Shadowcash) are functionally possible, but will the core team act on it? - or will the core team do as they please regardless?
This thread/poll is not a governance system, it's just another (interesting) discussion on the forum. If you want governance - create a proposal and fund implementing smth you think worth implementing. Start with masternode blinding if you think it's that easy. If your team can implement such changes without breaking Dash - good, we can talk about accepting this. If you think that every idea and even every implementation core team member had was always accepted - you are wrong. If you think that not accepting everything is totalitarian - you are wrong again.
I followed this discussion from the beginning and already pointed out pros and cons of some proposed techs and I thought it was clear that we follow most current anonymity techs and analyze if they are applicable to Dash. No additional new tech info was provided that I could respond to. The fact that "I want this!" thread does not make "this" magically appear in code doesn't mean that no one is listening.
Responding to my post with "fuck coinfirm, and anyone who supports working with them isn't helping" is not a constructive argument. If you want to respond to a post, then point out something I said that you disagree with and why. Throwing out stuff like this sends a message that you aren't interested in having a productive conversation.
I wouldn't mind seeing such a proposal, but if you're going to do a proposal, make it actually clear what the MNs are saying yes or no to. Don't just throw in a proposal asking "Is anonymity and fungibility a critical feature?", and then expect to interpret that to mean that the MNs disapprove of working with coinfirm or disapprove of the core team's stance on those things - because that doesn't logically follow.
I would absolutely accept the result of a vote if the proposal is clear. But consider for yourself, that if the MNs don't vote your way then are you going to accept the result or will you just say that it only went that way because it's stacked with core votes?
The point is, first we need to rid this thread and subject of all the people fighting it. I'm not trying to have a "constructive argument", there is no argument. If you don't want greater anonymity then you're basically fighting to retain flaws in dash's privacy model instead of improving it for everyone involved. Why should anyone here be defending the actions of Coinfirm unless they're somehow invested in them? The numbers here (90%+) simply don't reflect your view.
All the proposal has to do is ask MNOs if they want the core team to put more resources into improving dash's anonymity.. and that might very well mean implementing Shadowcash. When Evan asked MNOs to vote for a block size increase, he didn't give technical solutions... the technical solution was known as is Shadowcash. Evan said it was a way to get a clear signal that this was the right direction... well he got what he wanted, and now it's our turn to do likewise. Good enough for him, it's good enough for us.
There is a distinction between wanting greater anonymity and having a realistic view of what the consequences of certain actions are. I would guess that that most Dash users would like privacy to be an option, not a requirement, in part because they themselves would like to have a choice, and also because having no traceable blockchain might be an impediment to merchant acceptance. I would also guess that completely reworking the protocol to implement a different form of privacy protection would be a serious undertaking that right now is trumped by the development needs we have for the more imminent 12.1 and evolution.
No one is supporting or defending Coinfirm. We are supporting merchants who *will not* integrate Dash unless they are confident that they are in compliance with the law, which accounts for the vast majority of merchants and virtually all large merchants. If they can't hire coinfirm to do it, then their only other option is to do it in-house, which would be lower quality and more expensive, which means why bother? The fact is, no large retailer is going to ignore the massive risk of not taking basic reasonable steps to make sure they are not going to have the government up their ass. Specialized companies like coinfirm remove this critical barrier to adoption. Whether or not you or I think that the laws are morally justifiable is entirely irrelevant.
Don't ask if people want the core team to put "more resources" into anonymity. People will say yes to put more resources into literally *anything* good, so the meaning of the vote is lost. Make a proposal that says, Yes, we approve of working with coinfirm or No we should not work with coinfirm. That would be a far more meaningful proposal. Or make one that says, should we prioritize improving our privacy features over evolution/DAPI development? Try that. The 90% of votes in this poll are reflecting, yes, privacy is a critical feature. Which is not equivalent to all the claims you are making about it being a bad idea to partner with coinfirm or how the core team is going in the wrong direction.
You should go back to bitcoin, they have more compliance and more merchants to keep you happy. And yes, dash core is actively supporting (and thereby defending) Coinfirm, not just with integration but also hardware.. look in the other threads / proposals / interviews if you need evidence.
In fact, what the hell are you doing here if you wanted a compliant system just like a bank? Can't you go to Ethereum where they are already integrating with banks?
I have no NO IDEA why the hell a few people here are vigorously defending that nothing should be done to improve anonymity. I mean, attack me, that's fine.. but all these anonymity and fungibility arguments were originally started by Evan and continue to this day (when it suits him). Go argue it over with him.
It's not surprising, to me at least, that dash is losing ground to other cryptos. Keep it up guys, keep telling us why stuff can't or shouldn't be done.
I never said that nothing should be done. If you disagree with something that I said, you should articulate what it is that you disagree with and why. The only actual point you just made is that you are disagreeing with my statement about the definition of "supporting" coinfirm, which is a tangential issue in this discussion about whether or not it is a good idea to work with them to integrate Dash into their service.
Bitcoin doesn't "have" compliance. Compliance is not a feature of the protocol. Compliance is something that merchants HAVE to do in order to obey the law and protect their own interests, regardless of how they are getting paid. Would you be okay if Dash was permanently relegated to only be accepted by the small number of merchants who don't care about the legal risk? That would drop the potential market penetration by orders of magnitude. No matter what Dash does with its protocol, even if it has the best privacy ever built into it, you *can not* stop merchants from requiring basic, reasonable measures to protect themselves from legal risk, whether that comes from a hired company like coinfirm or their own internal analysis. That is just the reality we all need to face.
Stop thinking about this as if Coinfirm would prevent all private transactions. The only thing this would likely do is that if someone is an idiot and forgets to mix the coins they got from ISIS, maybe that transaction would pose a significant legal risk and the merchant might do something about it. The merchant just has to have something to be able to show the government that they have taken reasonable steps to make sure they are not knowingly doing something illegal. If the laws allow them to accept cash then it is unlikely they will have a problem with mixed coins unless there are other risk factors that are more significant than just the mixing. The impact on fungibility is not as extreme as you think it is, and on top of that, all of this is *inevitable* and will happen whether Dash wants it to or not. If it is going to happen anyway we might as well do what we can to accelerate adoption and be ahead of other cryptos in that respect.
You continued arguments to do nothing about it and bring zero to the solution.
Most people here don't give a shit about your merchant compliance because those that do are already using real cash or bank issued debit cards. What exactly is dash bringing to the table? If you're a merchant and want compliance, go ahead and ask for a driving license or passport.. compliance done.
Companies like Coinfirm go waaaay beyond compliance. Why are you ignoring their two-way partnerships with companies like Vodafone and ShapeShift? You're happy that compliance means every fabric of your daily life is pulled together, mapped and manipulated? - that you are profiled, your data sold, used and abused for a profit. But hey, let's just help them along, right? - because doing something for Coinfirm is betting than improving anonymity and fungibility in our product, right?
But here you go, try these quotes... go ahead, you can ask @eduffield if he's changed his mind....
https://medium.com/@simon/the-bright-side-of-darkcoin-a923facddc3c#.w1boqumbz
"I believe the central problem with Bitcoin is that the public ledger, although a remarkable accomplishment, also allows a gross invasion of personal privacy by permanently listing all transactions the users have ever done publicly. I would imagine many groups are working to tie the addresses used to real identities and then following the money around to see what is happening with it.
There was also a lot of talk recently about tainting coins to check and see if they’re “clean” (note: he means colored coins). I believe that all coins should be considered equal and you shouldn’t mess with the fungibility of the coins themselves."
https://www.coingecko.com/buzz/interview-evan-duffield-dashThere was also a lot of talk recently about tainting coins to check and see if they’re “clean” (note: he means colored coins). I believe that all coins should be considered equal and you shouldn’t mess with the fungibility of the coins themselves."
"How do you make a stable environment for it without losing fungibility of the individual coins? How do they expose users to privacy-invasive situations and things like that. I was watching and waiting for the Bitcoin team to do something about the fungibility issue but it never happened.
....
With Bitcoin, every transaction is traceable back to the coinbase transaction. What that means is that the coinbase is where the actual coins were created - that's when the miner mined them originally and then they start this path through the network from user to user. You can follow this procession and if at any point a user is identified as owning a specific address it suddenly means that anything they do after that is traceable. If you can identify one of the other addresses after it, you know that they did business with that person. The closer that those two transactions are, the more likely this happened.
Eventually a lot of these addresses and users are going to be identified. There will be companies selling these data, which is an invasion of privacy and no one wants a system that is susceptible to those types of attacks especially with a global ledger on the internet."
....
With Bitcoin, every transaction is traceable back to the coinbase transaction. What that means is that the coinbase is where the actual coins were created - that's when the miner mined them originally and then they start this path through the network from user to user. You can follow this procession and if at any point a user is identified as owning a specific address it suddenly means that anything they do after that is traceable. If you can identify one of the other addresses after it, you know that they did business with that person. The closer that those two transactions are, the more likely this happened.
Eventually a lot of these addresses and users are going to be identified. There will be companies selling these data, which is an invasion of privacy and no one wants a system that is susceptible to those types of attacks especially with a global ledger on the internet."
If you mix your coins, the source of those coins when you spend them still won't be able to get traced. That is still true with or without coinfirm.
It's not about whether I or merchants want compliance. It's about what may be *required by law* for businesses that are thinking about potentially accepting Dash. This is for people who would not otherwise accept Dash, to give them a way to accept it. Nobody enjoys complying with regulations but I am not going to expect Walmarts and Amazons to decide to allow payments by Dash without thinking about it.
I think I've mostly exhausted all I have to offer on this topic. It seems we just have different perspectives on the extent of the threat to fungibility that coinfirm represents, and where the priorities of the project should be. If you want to put in a proposal, where you make a simple yes/no vote on whether the MNs approve or disapprove of the partnership with coinfirm (and reference to this thread), it might help clarify for both of us where the community is at.
Last edited: