...You either have fungibility or not. You can't pretend to have fungibility while actually not having it. it has some tiny flaws first.
You're clinging to a slightly desperate philosophical angle here. Dash is a transparent blockchain for a reason - that we are dealing with an unbacked digital monetary asset which relies on public endorsement for its very existence as such. Insofar as anonymity impacts fungibility, the coin supply is just as fungible. It isn't affected by the public being able to audit and view movements since the distinction between one address and another is only quantitative, not qualitative and it's the latter that defines fungibility, not the former.
Information for you:
Encrypted blockchains are far less "verifiable" and far less "secure" than unencrypted ones.
Yeah it's called public key cryptography, you can verify the encrypted block with the public key, that is why Monero supplies a pubkey as well as an additional layer of privacy which you would normally not share.
Indeed. But the problem with encrypted chains is that confidence at the granular level (level of individual users) doesn’t aggregate to the macro level. Users are all firewalled off from each other by this encryption of the transacting environment so there’s nowhere near the consensual level of confidence you’d have in a transparent chain.
It’s all based on trust: trust in the “hopium” than that the client you happen to be using actually faithfully implements the protocol; trust in the
‘experts’ that the chain is ok when either some rogue group says it isn’t or when your own client software says it isn’t; trust in developers that the code isn’t doing some mad corrupt leakage out to an address that nobody can see or audit; trust in a centralised encryption algorithm that it won't be sprung open with a can opener a few years down the line to reveal every transaction in history. (A 'viewkey' doesn't in the least change this fact by the way. All a viewkey is is a private key with read-only privilages, it isn't a substitute for a fully transparent chain).
Whatever way you look at it, any level of blockchain obfuscation whatsoever simply creates a potentially toxic environment for weeds to grow and stay out of view. Meanwhile, any additional “privacy” it might offer is mostly redundant since the blockchain itself is only one of many transacting environments for the asset and the job was already done by Satoshi anyway. The only people that don’t see that are those that erroneously project a legacy “bank account” credit money paradigm onto blockchain assets.
Remember, transparent chains also use a version of public/private key cryptography. That’s why your private key is called a “private key”. It’s also why blockchain asset ownership is legitimately referred to as “private” since any knowledge about keyholder identities has be be gleaned off chain. It's like seeing a house in the street: the house is public but its ownership is private. You don't make the ownership any more private by making the house invisible. But you may make its value practically worthless.
By recycling the supply on a continuous basis, Dash further mitigates even that vector in order to keep your holdings “private” even though they may exist on a transparent chain and even though you may have transacted previously form an address associated with you.
- posts all individually thought out. Excellent !
