The problem isn't technical, it's sociological. If you compare the number of people for whom transparency is a priority over those for whom obscurity is a priority, the former dominate the latter into an insignificant minority because as I said earlier, it's the non-holders who support the value, not the holders.
Please do not refer to sociology only when it fits to your arguments. Do you want to mention sociology? Then here you are, this is what sociology dictates:
Why do you insist on using personal pronouns when referring to blockchain addresses ?
And my point is that non-holders dont care about privacy or obscurity or transparency of anonymous bank accounts. They only care about who owns how many coins. They only care about what person owns what account and how many accounts. They care who is the rich.
I don't disagree with you. It's just that your point is irrelevant.
There is nothing irrelevant, everything is connected in this universe. And a butterfly may cause a storm elsewhere.
Yes, this is your challenge. But If you decide today to follow the road of transparency and you refuse the privacy road then a personal records database will be created inevitably (with the help of Coinfirm and other companies like this). If this is what you want, then do nothing and remain transparent as you are today. If the raining is coming, and you dont take an umbrella, this means that you like to get wet.
That would be the case with any open, tradeable asset. It doesn't have much to do with whether the outputs on the blockchain are auditable or not. It's occuring *because* of the success of Dash as a monetary medium, not in spite of it. Start to worry if nobody's interested in your blockchain.
Thats why in Tezos, they choosed to write their software in OCaml.
And there are countless examples that support the privacy philosophy.
Exactly, open source to implement https but privacy expected for the data being carried.
What I understand you are trying to say is that you dont care if they will spot you, you dont care if they will tax you or if they will ban your mixed coins, as long as you get adoption by the mass.
Think you've been playing too much Game of Thrones. We're talking about a monetary asset, not a planetary conquest. Try succeeding at step1 before moving on to step 101.
If your first step is towards downhill, you will never manage to go uphill.
(1) If you don't want to be spotted, then mix your coins and only do business with people or businesses who allow people to pay anonymously (if they accept cash, then this is likely not going to be a big problem). It's that simple.
Of course not. If the blockchain is privacy first, they cannot tax you because they cannot discover you.
If a blockchain has half transparent half mixed/private coins, they can ban the mixed/private coins and give more value to the transparent ones (like it is done in Coinfirm, where mixed coins are stigmatized).
With a private chain it will still be required by law to report your capital gain or income transactions, just like it is required by law to report those transactions even if you mix your coins presently, or if you use normal cash. Failing to report reportable income is tax evasion regardless of what the currency is, regardless of whether you mix or use a totally private chain, and regardless of whether or not you get caught. Using a private chain instead of mixing does not significantly increase your chance of getting away with it. What matters in that respect is whether the people you do business with are willing to do business with people anonymously. If those people won't do business with mixed coins then they sure as hell won't do business with privacy first coins.
Yeah, and in the worst case for the transparency first chain, all they can do is ban the fiat gateways for mixed coins, but people will still use mixed coins anyway, just like they would still use private coins regardless. Because some people care more about privacy than others. I don't see what the point is here.
No. It is not regardless whether or not you get caught.
And how can the dash community prevent them for doing this?
And that there is exactly the dilemma they face. At the moment MNOs are the fall guy for end-users privacy; they are complicit in mixing (read "laundering") other people's coins. It's understandable that MNOs want to remain anonymous.. yet equally, core keep telling us they have legal and compliance representations because they want to be above board. Taking such a path has only two outcomes; dash becomes slave to the state, or enemy of the state.
Well, for example, as a merchant, I can't enforce the receiving of mixed coins, it's purely at the discretion / trust of the customer. I'd suggest that fungibility is when all coins are equal at the point of receiving, not after the transaction when complicity might already be established..
Right now, some masternode operators take extra steps to protect their privacy like staggering their votes. And some Dash users are using PrivateSend to anonymize their coins. Both of these things are optional. People who value privacy take steps to protect their privacy, I am shocked. The double standard is just overwhelming...
If that's so, go right ahead and create a thread asking MNOs to identify themselves and their stake, let's see who takes up your offer.
That doesn't follow. Nothing that I said would imply that either MNOs or any Dash users for that matter would voluntarily disclose their financial transactions to the public. Again, some Dash users are more careful than others when it comes to their privacy. And some Masternode operators are more careful than others when it comes to their privacy. Some people fail to protect their privacy through apathy or ignorance. If coinfirm or other blockchain analysis companies start coming more into play, then you will see more MNOs who care about privacy, taking extra measures to protect privacy, and you will see more end users who care about privacy, using PrivateSend.
