Privacy first vs transparency first

Do you want a transparency-first block chain or a privacy-first block chain?

  • Yes, I would like to see dash switch to a privacy-first block chain (permissioned transparency)

    Votes: 5 25.0%

  • No, I want to keep dash's transparency-first block chain (privacy via mixing)

    Votes: 15 75.0%
  • Total voters
    20
Use the force.

The core properties of money are well known and understood. One of them isn't privacy. That applies to a separate record keeping activity which assigns ownership of the underlying monetary asset to statutory entities.

Transparently authentic, indistinguishable units of a tradeable continuum on the other hand do qualify eminently and would have done 10, 100, 1000 or 10,000 years ago regardless of whether cryptography was invented at the time or not.

Forging a brand new electronic token as a monetary asset requires careful crafting of multiple technological and sociological properties so that it may be optimally absorbed by society's economic and statutory frameworks. Get the balance wrong and you'll be consigned to a small corner of nerdoistic fanaticism and and equally small corner of cornflakes packet history.

Get the balance right and you'll be rewarded with a solid asset that remains in demand and grows sustainably into a universally recognised and revered token of exchange.
 
Last edited:
toknormal said:
Forging a brand new electronic token as a monetary asset requires careful crafting of multiple technological and sociological properties so that it may be optimally absorbed by society's economic and statutory frameworks. Get the balance wrong and you'll be consigned to a small corner of nerdoistic fanaticism and and equally small corner of cornflakes packet history.

Get the balance right and you'll be rewarded with a solid asset that remains in demand and grows sustainably into a universally recognised and revered token of exchange.
Click to expand...

If you consider DASH as an asset, and not as cash, you are already lost.

Also please stop confusing people by calling something a different name!
Rename your coin from DigitalCash to DigitalAsset.
Also please, stop using the abbreviation DASH, and use DASS instead! :p
 
Last edited:
GrandMasterDash said:
Does Kraken do anything else apart from bitcoin and fiat?
Click to expand...

MGCxcxE.png


they do - actually they have ZEC (go figure) ;)
 
I'm guessing then, if bitcoin gets SegWit and Confidential Transactions that dash will not be following...
 
GrandMasterDash said:
Yes, but if bitcoin goes dark without tumblers, dash would still be supporting transparency-first
Click to expand...

you really think BTC will go "Dark" ?
come on - no way - check the regulations in the US and wherever now - not gonna happen
and if it would - BTC would disappear back to the DN and be gone anywhere else
and then Dash is #1 - problem solved ;)
 
tungfa said:
you really think BTC will go "Dark" ?
come on - no way - check the regulations in the US and wherever now - not gonna happen
and if it would - BTC would disappear back to the DN and be gone anywhere else
and then Dash is #1 - problem solved ;)
Click to expand...

Might be a good idea that you bookmark your comment and reflect on it later
 
How does it work that we can justify encrypted messaging, encrypted hard drives, privacy screens over ATM keypads, privacy of one's bank statement... yet somehow, inexplicably, the dash block chain MUST be transparent first?
 
GrandMasterDash said:
How does it work that we can justify encrypted messaging, encrypted hard drives, privacy screens over ATM keypads, privacy of one's bank statement... yet somehow, inexplicably, the dash block chain MUST be transparent first?
Click to expand...

they are different thing
with your messaging app you can do whatever you want
until something like that comes around:
https://cointelegraph.com/news/uk-b...ernment-authority-over-encrypted-technologies

for dash and crypto - we have to deal with the corrupt banking system (we want to or not) as somehow we have to get fiat into crypto and vice versa so yes public blockchains first - and happy mixing after - all sorted
i really do not understand where the issue is ! counfirm and others are sure mining data - they do that with or without us (best to "keep your enemies close") , so keep mixing and all good
 
tungfa said:
they are different thing
with your messaging app you can do whatever you want
until something like that comes around:
https://cointelegraph.com/news/uk-b...ernment-authority-over-encrypted-technologies

for dash and crypto - we have to deal with the corrupt banking system (we want to or not) as somehow we have to get fiat into crypto and vice versa so yes public blockchains first - and happy mixing after - all sorted
i really do not understand where the issue is ! counfirm and others are sure mining data - they do that with or without us (best to "keep your enemies close") , so keep mixing and all good
Click to expand...

glad you acknowledge Coinfirm as the enemy
 
Obfuscation merely for the sake of obfuscation makes little sense, if Bitcoin had taken that route then it's unlikely anyone outside of the cryptographic community that gave birth to Bitcoin would have heard of it today. The transparent ledger means anyone and everyone can see what's happening, that they can have confidence in it, without that Bitcoin wouldn't have grown to the size it is today.

But that size has become a problem, Bitcoin has become a victim of its own success with a very high cost to storing all those transactions and in my view that storage requirement is the only real justification for sacrificing transparency, removing those transactions from the records entirely. Storage is a valuable commodity and many would gladly pay to keep records of transactions but most don't care or only need to store them for a certain period. Obfuscation is more easily provided as an additional service than as a built in feature and has the benefit of a higher degree of confidence by maintaining transparency at the base level. If a privacy-first system where to be considered then there's not much point considering one that stores terabytes of useless junk.
 
stan.distortion said:
Obfuscation merely for the sake of obfuscation makes little sense, if Bitcoin had taken that route then it's unlikely anyone outside of the cryptographic community that gave birth to Bitcoin would have heard of it today. The transparent ledger means anyone and everyone can see what's happening, that they can have confidence in it, without that Bitcoin wouldn't have grown to the size it is today.

But that size has become a problem, Bitcoin has become a victim of its own success with a very high cost to storing all those transactions and in my view that storage requirement is the only real justification for sacrificing transparency, removing those transactions from the records entirely. Storage is a valuable commodity and many would gladly pay to keep records of transactions but most don't care or only need to store them for a certain period. Obfuscation is more easily provided as an additional service than as a built in feature and has the benefit of a higher degree of confidence by maintaining transparency at the base level. If a privacy-first system where to be considered then there's not much point considering one that stores terabytes of useless junk.
Click to expand...

It's not "for the sake of obfuscation".. the fact is, no one wants their salary visible on the block chain or their private transactions visible on the block chain. But go ahead, be the first to publicly announce all the income you've ever had.. your completely spending history.. and your complete location history because that too is what Coinfirm collects in partnership with carriers like Vodafone.

If you feel so strongly about transparency then maybe we should vote to remove the Private Send function altogether. I mean, who cares about that minority function called Private Send... it's only used by criminals or civil rights activists anyway.

Talking about storage limitations is a pretty lame attempt at diverting attention elsewhere.. no end users gives a shit about that.. for if they did, bitcoin would of never got anywhere because of the staggering amount of energy required to secure each and every block of transactions... or we'd be sitting here complaining about the waste of energy used by google et al in their enormous server farms.

People are quick at directing excuses at me, but I'm still waiting for ONE PERSON to challege Evan and his words regarding fungibility. It is an accepted fact - even by the transparency-first-brigade - that all these transactions in the clear are being data mined and the info sold... NOT MY WORDS, that's Evan's! Go ahead, challenge him on those words.. but it will never happen while the gentleman's club called dash is driven by a few pro-Orwellian elitists.
 
GrandMasterDash said:
It's not "for the sake of obfuscation".. the fact is, no one wants their salary visible on the block chain or their private transactions visible on the block chain. But go ahead, be the first to publicly announce all the income you've ever had.. your completely spending history.. and your complete location history because that too is what Coinfirm collects in partnership with carriers like Vodafone.



If you feel so strongly about transparency then maybe we should vote to remove the Private Send function altogether. I mean, who cares about that minority function called Private Send... it's only used by criminals or civil rights activists anyway.



Talking about storage limitations is a pretty lame attempt at diverting attention elsewhere.. no end users gives a shit about that.. for if they did, bitcoin would of never got anywhere because of the staggering amount of energy required to secure each and every block of transactions... or we'd be sitting here complaining about the waste of energy used by google et al in their enormous server farms.



People are quick at directing excuses at me, but I'm still waiting for ONE PERSON to challege Evan and his words regarding fungibility. It is an accepted fact - even by the transparency-first-brigade - that all these transactions in the clear are being data mined and the info sold... NOT MY WORDS, that's Evan's! Go ahead, challenge him on those words.. but it will never happen while the gentleman's club called dash is driven by a few pro-Orwellian elitists.
Click to expand...

Are you actually taking on board what people have said so far or just arguing for the sake of argument? You might as well be talking about rainbows and unicorns as Gentleman's clubs or Orwellian agendas, you can be entirely anonymous with Bitcoin or simple Dash transactions and no amount of data mining can change that, not without entirely preventing person to person exchanges. If you're looking for supporters to challenging core development then go right ahead but I doubt you'll find much on a Dash forum.
 
stan.distortion said:
Are you actually taking on board what people have said so far or just arguing for the sake of argument? You might as well be talking about rainbows and unicorns as Gentleman's clubs or Orwellian agendas, you can be entirely anonymous with Bitcoin or simple Dash transactions and no amount of data mining can change that, not without entirely preventing person to person exchanges. If you're looking for supporters to challenging core development then go right ahead but I doubt you'll find much on a Dash forum.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought.. not willing to make public your complete income and expenses.. but it's perfectly okay for Coinfirm to data mine you and sell it on to others.. just like Evan said, not me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top