Topic: A good and exhaustive summary of differences between best anonymous coins ? (Read 1902 times)

Not everyone is doing that, I can assure you...

the people send money to exchanges who require names and emails. They keep records of trades made.
the anonymity question is rather suspect

..Unless, we can find a way to have post quantum protection without further increasing key sizes to afford the security.

Even then, it's a big stretch unless a) everyone that uses this has access to many GB's of bandwidth or b) we find some way to keep consensus without using present fios/network infrastructure for io into the blockchain.

Perhaps, if quantum computing were achieved, then this would be a possibility. Where the problem we were to solve presents a solution that was previously unsolvable.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/15/secure-quantum-internet-photons-computers

So, really all we gotta do is focus on quantum secure algorithms and the rest will take care of itself, space and network saturation be damned.

There's your niche.

Dream big or go home boys

Thanks for your awnsers guys !

Yeah very interesting points.  It reminds me what I was thinking the other day, that DRK is kind of like the analog version of anonymity, and zero knowledge/cryptonote type coins are like the digital version.  I guess my gut feeling is that digital is better in the long run. But you are right it has certain risks that the analog model does not have.  It is different because if it is broken or flawed, then everything is flawed and exposed.  Its the same as a television screen, the digital signal is either there or not there, but when you have an analog signal, it can come in as static and be partially there. But I feel a little worried that any coinjoin/mixing scheme could have the possibility to be unwound eventually, where if true zero knowledge crypto exists, its like the holy grail of anonymity and privacy.

But the size difference is what's tough to deal with.

DRK is using a protocol known to be prunable. Will there be a larger chain - yes. But it will still be smaller than the size due to creating ring signatures - the p2p network likely isn't going to get overloaded. Both CN and the bastardized version of it that is now in use in shadowcash are presumed to be prunable, but there are no public proofs of it to date.

The real question here is whether or not fancy mixing will be susceptible to quantum algorithms - in the sense that your transaction history can be traced from the blockchain. I have yet to see anyone claim that, and I believe it would be harder because the privacy is afforded much more from statistics than cryptography in DRK, where CN and SDC offer their privacy through mostly cryptography alone. But again, I'm just the guy's cousin - so all I can really say for sure is do I want 1 in 100,000 or so (meaning: number out of my ass, could be as low as 1 in 2, or even higher than 100k - i dunno) transactions traceable due to a statistical predictability, or do I want every transaction ever recorded on the blockchain to be susceptible to tracing. I'm concentrating on this, because I'm operating under the assumption that the PoW, DS protection, and even transaction creation can move toward a quantum-secure algorithm in the future - but fact is that it's just not there yet.

So, I'm left with the really tough decision - do I go with the two methods that currently have a legitimately scary flaw in their reason for existence, one of which has very little infrastructure and one a little bit more - or do I go with the method that has a statistical error that will ultimately lead me to a few, but not all, of my transactions being traceable. It's tough - but I gotta go with the car that's working for now, however few cylinders it's running on.

The second I see quantum secure transaction creation, PoW, and DS prevention, as well as pruning (as well as 100+GB bandwidth available to a cryptocurrency) on the CN blockchain is the second I hop back into buy mode. Probably even sooner than that because cryptographic protection > statistical protection IMO, but end of the day, if I actually need to use a private currency in Feb 2015 I'm gonna gave to give it to DRK. If I actually need to use a private currency in 2016, or 2017, after some changes been changed, I'm gonna have to go with CN.

Lol, sounds credible.  One interesting thing to consider is that recently Evan Duffield the lead DRK developer said that DRK's scheme also causes blockchain bloat, but it isn't as bad because only about 1 in 100 transactions use darksend, and its only used when needed (39 min mark): http://youtu.be/5zPYWEPh_Us?t=39m28s

The same could actually be said for ShadowCash.  Because Shadow has two units of account, SDC, and also Shadow (SDT).  When sending SDC to SDC there is no bloat at all and it works just like Bitcoin and is transparent.  Only when using the Shadow send feature would it create bloat as far as I understand, and Shadow send is only used when needed for privacy.

I have heard that the issue of a quantum attack would affect all cryptos in breaking the ECDSA signatures.  But this could be protected against by never reusing addresses from what I understand.  Also new signing algorithms in the future could be applied to resist such quantum attacks.  I have heard Vitalik Buterin suggest updating to Lamport signatures to help guard against certain attacks, not sure if this would help against quantum attacks, but I can remember reading about some other schemes that would.  Here is an interesting read on the topic: http://www.bitcoinnotbombs.com/bitcoin-vs-the-nsas-quantum-computer/

Sorry if I didn't explain it better.

The privacy is at risk at some unknown, yet expected and agreed to definitely occur, future date, due to being part of the blockchain, due to quantum computing.

Not just the double spending.

Both the unlinkability and untraceability will be totally up for grabs.

Is that more correct?

Bitcoin went up and down and up and down, and up and down.

Seeing a cycle?

These things kinda do that. Giving me the upper and lower bounds is a nice gesture, but ultimately they're gonna tend to zero or infinity and there aint a single person on this planet that knows which one something like a darkcoin is gonna trend towards.

Interesting you picked drk though, fine i'll be a sounding board..

Why the drop? because it spiked in price so fast, yes because it was pumped and dumped.

Did I say that dark was the best solution?

Hell no. It's the one with the most people that have been looking for anonymity in bitcoin since the idea popped into existence that it's not really so anonymous. Most of them are idiots, to be blunt. So just as bluntly, there's just not one smart dude in the world, thats gonna be hired by some trailer trash excuse for a currency that will be able to convince these people, even amongst charts, graphs, and a divine blessing from god that will convince them otherwise.

Pretty much the only thing that's gonna convince them is regulation, taxes or death. Really out of bounds for a cryptographer, no?

As far as all are bullshit, just pick some random % you'd like to own out of just about all currencies.

Then, when one goes up, you just don't care that another didn't go up. And if one makes it to the top, then you have that much of a %.

Definitely helps to keep you from selling as well.

...that's every cryptocurrency that uses a hashing algorithm ever, because of Grover's algorithm (which breaks all known hash functions).
http://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/419/what-security-do-cryptographic-sponges-offer-against-generic-quantum-attacks

Hey I happen to totally be his cousin that knows just as much as he does.

I can tell you theres a lot of size, which will lead to overloaded p2p networks as well as hard drives unless pruning is a possibility (still inconsequential because of the massive size of the transactions overloading peoples internet connections - nodes will be permanently centralized), and also theres the lack of security against quantum computing which is the same damn reason cryptonote is seemingly shitting the bed. So, not only will there be the possibility to double spend, the entire transaction history will have a matching quantum algorithm.

Don't paint a bag of shit blue and tell me theres chocolates inside critter.

Monero has forward and reverse secrecy by default.
Forward: All transactions in Monero are stealth by default, and keys are 100% non-reuseable.
Reverse: Transactions inputs can be mixed with outputs from any other unspent output in the past using the same amount with ring signatures.

So, you can't tell where anything is going, and in the near term soft fork (which we will be publishing a paper on shortly) you also won't be able to tell where funds are coming from with any degree of confidence, unless you choose to publish that information on your own.

Monero also has very different economic policies -- it has a tiny perpetual inflation designed to keep the supply growing and to enforce its use as a currency rather than a store of value. This also ensures that blocks in the future will always have some reward, so PoW can continue to secure the network.

Monero, we had always hoped, wouldn't be a "stealth this" or "darknet that", but rather a currency for the everyday person to use with some reasonable expectation of privacy. Because as anyone knows with Bitcoin, it's piss easy to tell if Joe Blow down the street bought his girlfriend an abortion, or if you just spent half your paycheck on booze and cigarettes or a donation to the EFF. It's about having the same reasonable expectation of privacy with a cryptocurrency that you would have with a normal bank account. The government can still always press you to release your private keys or whatever if they want you to pay taxes, and so on. It's a cryptocurrency to help bridge the world between cryptoequity (which Bitcoin really is) and regular currencies, and hopefully one day become an actual, usable currency (unlike Bitcoin).

It's not a threat to the government (it's still much more traceable than cash, just probably less so than DRK/SDC/whatever) or intended for you to use as Internet Crack Bucks. Probably if you want to buy stupid things online, you'd be better off mailing cash.

Bitshares also has anonymity with TITAN, which is basically default stealth transactions.

I'm not sure how stealth transactions compare to the coinjoin in darkcoin? Could some of the experts give an opinion on this?

You do know Darkcoin was at its height $64 million market cap last May right? And you know it dropped all the way down to $2 million from that? If the fundamentals of the coin were so strong why the drastic drop? Because it was a pump and dump then and it is a pump and dump now. Contrary to popular opinion, as you can see from the heated divisions on this forum not everyone buys into Dark being the "best" anon solution. This is why someone like Isidor coming in to bring an educated voice to the debate is needed. You can't go off just the word of the developers their solution is flawless.

In fact I wouldn't be shocked if he came back and said ALL are bullshit more than him picking a winner, because I am cynical by nature, but I do obviously have my favorite.

Hello there.  I never said any such thing about price resulting from one broke/bloke.  Rather the price is more a function of the press and media hype that a coin gets.  Unfortunately for ShadowCash it has not gotten the attention it yet deserves, as it has been eclipsed by other anon coins such as DRK, which got a first mover advantage.  People also got burned out on a lot of anon coin scams, so they are very skeptical of any new coin and tired to look into them all.

Also Isidor Zeuner is not some bloke unrelated to cryptocurrency.  He is a German cryptographer, and one of the few active members on the Bitcoin developers mailing list.  Often his posts are involved with anonymity and privacy.  You can read some of Isidor Zeuner's stuff on the bitcoin dev mailing list here: https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/

So, encrypted messaging and basically the opinion of some broke plebian discord result in the amount of $282,482.

ring signatures and basically some crazed bible thumpers brought together $1,415,675.

while fancy mixing, with basically the entire social capital that was originally interested in an anonymous bitcoin originally bring in $16,963,366

and you're telling me that the price rising to greater than 17 million dollar market cap hinges on the opinion of one broke absolutely unrelated to cryptocurrency motherfucker?

Please.

If that worked I'd be a fucking millionaire right now.    

There has been a little bit of a debate about this, which occasionally turns into a troll/flame/FUD fest.  People are very defensive about their coins.  Personally I feel that SDC has the most promise from things I have seen. However I think we should support all projects that are attempting to increase privacy and anonymity in crypto.  

Anyways Isidor Zeuner is said to be coming out with a review on ShadowCash in the near future, and I heard he may also be comparing ShadowCash to Monero, DRK, cryptonote, and other anon coins to highlight the similarities and differences.  There has been some confusion on this issue.  I think that if ShadowCash passes peer review without any critical flaw then it is probably the best anon coin.  But I'm sure others who are diehard fans of other anon coins will disagree.

Also I should mention that the Shadow Project has other valuable things such as ShadowChat encrypted messaging within the official wallet.  Soon they say they will add voice, video, and file support.  They are also working on a decentralized marketplace within the official wallet, similar to open bazaar.  They also have had many other accomplishments with their wallet and mobile wallets.

Wat?


Did you even read what was said or did you just read that shadowshit was mentioned and spew your obligatory salute? Your response seems to be a reflex, with dick to add to this.

i'd say Shadowcash is most superior atm, but read the different whitepapers and make your descision

Depends, how wealthy are you?