Existing "privacy coins" change the security model pretty substantially-- a DLP break results in unbounded undetectable inflation. They also tend to have scaling/scanning problems that in practice obliterate much of the privacy gains-- e.g. because huge numbers of users hand over scanning keys who might well just be selling them to your adversaries (whomever they are).
There is no free lunch, at least not yet-- though there is a lot of research ongoing.
Meanwhile there are ways to use bitcoin much more privately with little cost-- and yet few users avail themselves of them. So technology isn't the limiting point or at least not the only limiting point. Even better things have been imagined and could be developed, but a limiting factor there is just that no one will use them. Or only people doing actually shitty stuff will: Helping bad actors as an unavoidable side effect of helping everyone else is one thing-- it's an inherent consequences of development and invention--, but helping mostly the bad actors is something else entirely. -- and a privacy tool that is mostly used by bad actors isn't really much of a privacy tool anyways.
Look at zcash or whatever, use of the anonymity part is such an insubstantial part of the system that careful bitcoin use probably gets you a better anonymity set in spite of the huge theoretical gap in the potential privacy level.
Aside: Stronger privacy tools built out of non-privacy or weaker privacy functionality are inherently more censorship resistant and techniques that can also join users that don't care about privacy in their anonymity set will tend to have bigger anonymity sets.
As far as the tweet goes-- I doubt any bitcoin developer has ever heard from Snowden, I can imagine if they had they'd be quite exited. Don't read too much into hyperbole.
Ah and aside: the latest Bitcoin Core major release supports a new p2p protocol which is encrypted, -- an important step forward against global passive observers... yet only about 9% of listening nodes are running it!
Topic: Edward Snowden Final Warning for Bitcoin - page 3. (Read 1767 times)
Edwards Snowden just made a tweet with final warning for everyone that privacy for Bitcoin is needed on protocol level.
I tend to agree with him on this and I really don't understand why nothing has been done regarding that for years, unless this was done intentional.
Funny comment was made by Jameson that we might take another ten years to do this
The clock is ticking...
I tend to agree with him on this and I really don't understand why nothing has been done regarding that for years, unless this was done intentional.
Funny comment was made by Jameson that we might take another ten years to do this
The clock is ticking...
if you want privacy then use a coin designed for privacy. simple as that. but to expect bitcoin to change the way it fundamentally works is kind of naive. snowden doesn't seem to understand how bitcoin works...
it's not that simple to just turn it into something like monero. Worst case scenario, we can go back to gold - if we're allowed
yeah at least until the IRS starts requiring people to register their gold with them, gold is pretty anonymous and private. it has no history that can taint it. you can melt it down and it is indistinguishable from all other gold. maybe edward snowden never heard of gold though.
We don't need to create a sidechain. Privacy can be available directly to the main chain with softforks, and maybe with no forks through some complicated decentralized coinjoin, like Joinmarket but vastly more available in wallet software like Sparrow, but that wouldn't be very effective and cheap.
ABCBitcoin has linked Joinstr in another thread, which seems exactly like that. Basically it's CoinJoins with the communication being coordinated via Nostr (a decentralized messaging protocol). It has an Electrum plugin. Only drawback is that it seems to be in beta still, i.e. it's not recommended to use it on mainnet.
I'm no coder, but I *think* it's possible to create something vaguely akin to Liquid
I'm a fan of combining several approaches, so for me it's not a "this solution OR another". Litecoin is showing that the sidechain approach (extension blocks are something like an "official" sidechain, see here how they work) seem to work. In addition, sidechains would help to alliviate the scalability problem (even if franky1 will yell "IOU! IOU!", he's wrong with that).I have already proposed it in another context, but Bitcoiners could fork eventually a platform like Stacks (STX), replace the centralized premined consensus token with a PoW token, and you'd have a full decentralized sidechain. Stacks sBTC (the sidechain "bridge") is set to go live in the remainding of 2024. You could then integrate a privacy protocol there.
OP_CAT, which has recently got BIP status, could also help with the sidechain task, as it would allow covenants, required by some sidechain types.
And additionally solutions like JoinStr on the base layer.
The good thing about a "multitude of options" is that the Bitcoin developers themselves would not have to "know" about these solutions, i.e. they wouldn't be in danger to be accused to cooperate with privacy tools. The users wanting to buy Bitcoin with KYC or via ETF would also not have to bother. Yes, that makes the privacy set a bit smaller as if privacy was mandatory but I think even a set of 10% of Bitcoin users would be already a lot. Bitcoin isn't as small as an altcoin like Zcash.
I agree. The problem is that nobody will try this experiment in a trillion dollar asset. And this is precisely why it will never change its sustainability model. But, hear me out; this isn't a bad thing. The ingenious part of this technology is that we experiment on several networks and see which fits us best, without having to quarrel over ideals and shortcomings of one network.
If you want dynamical block size, you don't need to convince Bitcoin people to change their rules. You just need to migrate to Monero.
If you want dynamical block size, you don't need to convince Bitcoin people to change their rules. You just need to migrate to Monero.
Couldn't agree more, I guess only time can tell if any of this models will survive in the long-term.
Worst case scenario, we can go back to gold - if we're allowed
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1786170805728039127
Edwards Snowden just made a tweet with final warning for everyone that privacy for Bitcoin is needed on protocol level.
I tend to agree with him on this and I really don't understand why nothing has been done regarding that for years, unless this was done intentional.
Funny comment was made by Jameson that we might take another ten years to do this
The clock is ticking...
Snowden is correct. This question has been lingering for a decade as our governments continue to regulate and sanction the crypto space. The day will come when this will be an emergency question. We need privacy blockchain solutions ready for a future that is adversarial to crypto. Projects like Iron Fish can be part of a private transaction movement away from transparent blockchains, which are vulnerable to restrictions of individual freedoms.
...sorry Edward Snowden, we know you mean good but for now, convenience is king.
Oh wow, you did say that! I wouldn’t have expected it from you but it’s okay, you’re allowed.Still, it’s better to not risk convince with best fit. Bitcoin and the many services of its kind exists as revolutionary, tends to question the status quo, models to doing things as well as introducing new models to achieving previous means to transacting.
Bitcoin was made to be decentralized which in many ways speaks anonymity and in turn privacy. Hence, not having privacy as some critical level of the innovation as an oversight that shouldn’t be allowed to persist. These are security levels for an ordinary Bitcoin investor.
Final warning? Does that mean he'll shut up about bitcoin from now on?
I like Snowden, but he of all people should know that issuing warnings is only going to make people feel on edge, uncertain if they want to hold bitcoin. Al that this is going to achieve is make a few people miss out on the opportunity just because Snowden said bitcoin is not private enough and can be taken over or whatever they'll make out of this.
Does he think that writing messages on social media will change the bitcoin protocol?
I like Snowden, but he of all people should know that issuing warnings is only going to make people feel on edge, uncertain if they want to hold bitcoin. Al that this is going to achieve is make a few people miss out on the opportunity just because Snowden said bitcoin is not private enough and can be taken over or whatever they'll make out of this.
Does he think that writing messages on social media will change the bitcoin protocol?
So a variable block size is increasing it's capability to scale up.
If we follow this line of reasoning, simply increasing the block size by a factor of 100x, scales the system up by 100x. Single Bitcoin transactions weights more than single Monero transaction when people want to make it private by multiple hops.
I agree, but if you compare "non-private" Bitcoin transaction with Monero transaction, they weigh much less. I didn't want to change this discussion to mainly comparing this two but there is no better example of protocol scalability issues on Bitcoin and the solution to it without sacrificing decentralization.
In dynamical block size, you do sacrifice decentralization. It's just that the difference increases and decreases based on demand for new transactions.Reminds me of people that couldn't give up Windows XP for years because it was smaller and less bloated, yes it was smaller, took less memory but performance wise slower than newer OS
It is a very poor analogy...The only other argument I've heard aside from bigger hardware requirements is that fees need to stay high and get even higher because that's how miners will be paid.
That's actually the most valid argument. In 20 years from now, block subsidy will be less than 0.1 bitcoin. This means the miners will earn less than 3.33% of what they currently earn from subsidies. There has to be competition on transaction confirmation, otherwise the security will overtime decline rapidly. But I think it's better to have more smaller fees than fewer high fees, it would be much more stable than relying on fewer big fishes and the utility wouldn't reduce to "not using it/holding".
I agree. The problem is that nobody will try this experiment in a trillion dollar asset. And this is precisely why it will never change its sustainability model. But, hear me out; this isn't a bad thing. The ingenious part of this technology is that we experiment on several networks and see which fits us best, without having to quarrel over ideals and shortcomings of one network. If you want dynamical block size, you don't need to convince Bitcoin people to change their rules. You just need to migrate to Monero.
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1786170805728039127
Edwards Snowden just made a tweet with final warning for everyone that privacy for Bitcoin is needed on protocol level.
I tend to agree with him on this and I really don't understand why nothing has been done regarding that for years, unless this was done intentional.
Funny comment was made by Jameson that we might take another ten years to do this
The clock is ticking...
That's reminding me of the FUD that Mike Hearn was spreading when he sold every coin he had and quit Bitcoin. I believe he sold everything below $300? Mere three digits against a possible six digits during the peak of the current cycle.
But about Snowden's tweet, it's debatable. There are important issues, technical and social, to consider. There's also the political issue.
Scalability isn't defined over the block size .... It is defined over the size of the transactions, the size of the block, and the time it takes it verify the block.
So a variable block size is increasing it's capability to scale up.Transactions in Monero are much larger in size due to ring signatures, and require orders of magnitude more time to verify, because the client has to check the entire TXO set (as opposed to only the UTXO set, as in Bitcoin). So, it is becoming more computationally expensive (linearly, I think?) to verify a transaction, as time goes by.
Single Bitcoin transactions weights more than single Monero transaction when people want to make it private by multiple hops.
I don't have actual numbers on it but years ago I've seen someone doing a report on it.
The key difference is that Bitcoin having protocol limitations to scalability (block size capacity being the main bottleneck) can't be solved by upgrading infrastructure.
On Monero network it can be solved without any change to the protocol.
I didn't want to change this discussion to mainly comparing this two but there is no better example of protocol scalability issues on Bitcoin and the solution to it without sacrificing decentralization.
I've seen some Bitcoiners talking how bigger block could negatively affect the decentralization but it's BS due to quickly changing infrastructure around the world and the fact that requirements for it are not that big.
Reminds me of people that couldn't give up Windows XP for years because it was smaller and less bloated, yes it was smaller, took less memory but performance wise slower than newer OS.
Bitcoin is slower due to software limitations, software should never limit hardware capabilities.
I like the visual representation of the problem:
https://tx.town/v/xmr-btc
The question I would ask, how long Bitcoin is gonna stick to the medieval hardware requirements ?
I remember when I was a kid, selling my motorcycle to buy a 128 MB stick of RAM, now I have 32 GB RAM on my cheap laptop. Same can be said about all the other components and Internet speed.
And it seems it's only getting momentum, people think we're on the edge of tech while in reality we've just put our foot outside the cave.
https://www.popsci.com/technology/fiber-optic-wavelength-record/
We don't need Bitcoin to be able to run on archaic hardware forever, it doesn't make sense, gives no advantages in the long run and only slowing it down.
The only other argument I've heard aside from bigger hardware requirements is that fees need to stay high and get even higher because that's how miners will be paid.
But I think it's better to have more smaller fees than fewer high fees, it would be much more stable than relying on fewer big fishes and the utility wouldn't reduce to "not using it/holding".
Scalability isn't defined over the block size, or how many transactions are processed every second. It is defined over the size of the transactions, the size of the block, and the time it takes it verify the block. Transactions in Monero are much larger in size due to ring signatures, and require orders of magnitude more time to verify, because the client has to check the entire TXO set (as opposed to only the UTXO set, as in Bitcoin). So, it is becoming more computationally expensive (linearly, I think?) to verify a transaction, as time goes by.
You are right. Scalability is the capability of a network to handle a growing amount of transactions either in the future or present without delay just by changing in size or capacity. That is where we hear the phrase to scale up which also means to increase in capacity.
There's no bottleneck when it comes to current Monero protocol scalability, the only scalability issue people talk about is the higher hardware requirement but this is quickly going away as technology progresses.
Running own node on an old computer with SSD drive is not a problem, having your protocol neutered just so it can run on 20 years old computers and 56k modem is not necessary and only harms it.
The Bitcoin scalability problem seems to be the main center of attraction as Monero doesn't show any major similar effect. The bottleneck problem happens to be a problem that has affected the Bitcoin network, thereby limiting its ability to progress in handling a vast growing number of transactions within a period of time and in a secure manner, which tends to lead to a delay in confirmation of TX and high TX fees.
Actually, scalability is better than in Bitcoin due to variable block size.
Scalability isn't defined over the block size, or how many transactions are processed every second. It is defined over the size of the transactions, the size of the block, and the time it takes it verify the block. Transactions in Monero are much larger in size due to ring signatures, and require orders of magnitude more time to verify, because the client has to check the entire TXO set (as opposed to only the UTXO set, as in Bitcoin). So, it is becoming more computationally expensive (linearly, I think?) to verify a transaction, as time goes by. ...Monero comes with its own issues, like scalability, which might not be apparent currently, but I'm sure it will be remarkable as time goes on.
Actually, scalability is better than in Bitcoin due to variable block size.
There's no bottleneck when it comes to current Monero protocol scalability, the only scalability issue people talk about is the higher hardware requirement but this is quickly going away as technology progresses.
Running own node on an old computer with SSD drive is not a problem, having your protocol neutered just so it can run on 20 years old computers and 56k modem is not necessary and only harms it.
Isn't Bitcoin going obsolete in long-term ? I mean, you can get Monero on DEX / P2P anywhere in the world without ever needing CEX, why would you add Bitcoin to the equation ?
Bitcoin won't go obsolete long-term, as a whole. Perhaps Bitcoin as efficient medium of exchange does, but in general it cannot disappear. It's too important to overlook. It's the best money there is, again with only the privacy as the weak point. Bitcoin is the universally accepted version of cryptocurrency, and the one with the greatest network effect and development. It's very difficult to lose this position once it gets it, and it's already been 15 years.
The problem I see for Bitcoin in long-term is not enough incentive for miners to keep it secure
Even though I agree that a tail emission is safer, I sense that due to the aforementioned network effect, transaction fees alone will be sufficient. And at this point, you would absolutely not want to transact on-chain, because fees would perhaps reach even three digits. As for Monero essentially replacing Bitcoin in the vast majority of merchants as a medium of exchange, I think it's difficult to know. Monero comes with its own issues, like scalability, which might not be apparent currently, but I'm sure it will be remarkable as time goes on.
I guess that all depends on where you can spend your funds. Merchant adoption will also be one of the deciding factors. If XMR proves popular among merchants, then problem solved. Otherwise, more privacy in Bitcoin would be the next best thing.
Maybe not even privacy will attract as much as lower fees and faster transactions compared to BTC with *bonus* privacy for which people don't care that much until they face problems due to lack of it.
Actually, merchants could care for privacy much more than customer as some sales data could be uncomfortable to be transparent in face of competition.
Merchants can also not like the fact that their clients are spending a nice percentage on fees, money that could be spend in their shop.
They could also decrease the margin they earn per product/service in order to price in this fees to make it more viable for customers but that's just money lost.
Transaction fees are like tax, Bitcoin has a really high tax.
I can see why merchant adoption for Bitcoin could still rise because that's new revenue and a good way to advertise along Bitcoin.
But other than that, merchants are already drowning in multiple tax obligations before they can earn something.
Many shops to this day don't offer VISA/Mastercard due to additional costs and if they finally add this option, it's because they've lost too many customers because of lack of it.
Some merchants offer it because they are forced by the "adoption", I think it's really sad.
Cryptocurrency with low fees could help them earn more money and this could trigger higher adoption to lower fee cryptocurrency because the competition will have higher price for products when offering it for Bitcoin or less revenue if they lower the prices to price in the fees.
From a Merchant point of view, using physical FIAT/cheaper cryptocurrency, will give more revenue and people will choose the cheaper option to pay.
This is the extortion merchants have to deal with today when it comes to payment processors alone:
Quote
The cost of payment processing is a complex, multi-faceted subject, but we’ll try to keep things relatively simple here.
Payment service providers (PSPs) like Square, PayPal, and Stripe are popular all-in-one processing options for newer and smaller businesses, as you can quickly get approved for an account and a card reader. PSPs generally don’t charge monthly or annual fees for basic services.
PSPs typically offer flat-rate pricing. With flat-rate pricing, a percentage rate and (usually) a fixed fee are taken from each transaction you process. For card-present transactions taken with card readers/terminals, the percentage fee varies from 2.2% to 2.8%, while the fixed per-transaction fee, when it exists, varies from 5 to 15 cents. A few providers don’t change a fixed per-transaction fee.
...
However, as your business expands, you may find that you require the kind of advanced functionality that only a paid POS system can provide. Should you need more than what a free POS can provide, the cost of POS software can run up to $300/month or more.
Source: https://www.merchantmaverick.com/credit-card-reader-fees/Payment service providers (PSPs) like Square, PayPal, and Stripe are popular all-in-one processing options for newer and smaller businesses, as you can quickly get approved for an account and a card reader. PSPs generally don’t charge monthly or annual fees for basic services.
PSPs typically offer flat-rate pricing. With flat-rate pricing, a percentage rate and (usually) a fixed fee are taken from each transaction you process. For card-present transactions taken with card readers/terminals, the percentage fee varies from 2.2% to 2.8%, while the fixed per-transaction fee, when it exists, varies from 5 to 15 cents. A few providers don’t change a fixed per-transaction fee.
...
However, as your business expands, you may find that you require the kind of advanced functionality that only a paid POS system can provide. Should you need more than what a free POS can provide, the cost of POS software can run up to $300/month or more.
My friend has a shop for almost 20 years now, he has a card reader for only 5 years now because his revenue was too small to pay additional fees but currently most customers prefer card payments so he had to go with the times.
And, either way, it's likely going to be independent developers who build it. If it's something people really do care about, then someone will hopefully find a way. Even if it does prove to be more costly than a conventional transaction.
If it's (much) more costly, people will not use it. Why pay $20 or more to make your transaction private when you can have privacy for free ?
I guess that all depends on where you can spend your funds. Merchant adoption will also be one of the deciding factors. If XMR proves popular among merchants, then problem solved. Otherwise, more privacy in Bitcoin would be the next best thing.
Here's what happens: Most of the people who buy Bitcoin don't really care about using it as currency. Those who do care about privacy, buy bitcoin and swap it for XMR whenever they want private cash. So, it's more like everyone's happy without breaking things. I agree that Bitcoin should have some appropriate levels of privacy in the base layer, though. Currently, it's just far from that.
Isn't Bitcoin going obsolete in long-term ? I mean, you can get Monero on DEX / P2P anywhere in the world without ever needing CEX, why would you add Bitcoin to the equation ?
I understand using Bitcoin for it's FIAT pumping capabilities and on/off ramping but when that breaks, what will be the point of Bitcoin versus something that's cheaper to transact without all the privacy issues ?
Surely old holders will stay in Bitcoin much longer if not indefinitely, but newcomers will have no reason to use Bitcoin as a proxy, that only harms privacy for additional high fee.
Even gold was never that popular when it comes to regular "Joe's", how many of your friends have stored their value in gold ? granted, some may keep it secret for security reasons.
But we all know how it is, people are not "savers", people are spenders.
Bitcoin attracted a lot of people to saving only because of "becoming a millionaire" dream but as soon as it pumps and dumps, their spending nature will overcome the greed of holding for another year or so.
The problem I see for Bitcoin in long-term is not enough incentive for miners to keep it secure, even more than possible censorship that will be forced on miners because as you said - holders don't care about using it as currency.
Just holding Bitcoin harms it in the long-term.
I might be wrong... but I see a lot of concerns with a chain that want to survive on transaction fees alone when it's main purpose is to hold it.
And, either way, it's likely going to be independent developers who build it. If it's something people really do care about, then someone will hopefully find a way. Even if it does prove to be more costly than a conventional transaction.
If it's (much) more costly, people will not use it. Why pay $20 or more to make your transaction private when you can have privacy for free ?
I'm no coder, but I *think* it's possible to create something vaguely akin to Liquid
We don't need to create a sidechain. Privacy can be available directly to the main chain with softforks, and maybe with no forks through some complicated decentralized coinjoin, like Joinmarket but vastly more available in wallet software like Sparrow, but that wouldn't be very effective and cheap. Either way, I don't think we're near accomplishing Monero's levels of privacy without a hardfork.
And, either way, it's likely going to be independent developers who build it. If it's something people really do care about, then someone will hopefully find a way. Even if it does prove to be more costly than a conventional transaction.
We don't want to upset the money flow from this big investors, aren't we ?
Here's what happens: Most of the people who buy Bitcoin don't really care about using it as currency. Those who do care about privacy, buy bitcoin and swap it for XMR whenever they want private cash. So, it's more like everyone's happy without breaking things. I agree that Bitcoin should have some appropriate levels of privacy in the base layer, though. Currently, it's just far from that. I'm no coder, but I *think* it's possible to create something vaguely akin to Liquid
We don't need to create a sidechain. Privacy can be available directly to the main chain with softforks, and maybe with no forks through some complicated decentralized coinjoin, like Joinmarket but vastly more available in wallet software like Sparrow, but that wouldn't be very effective and cheap. Either way, I don't think we're near accomplishing Monero's levels of privacy without a hardfork. Even if we implement ring signatures, Bitcoin UTXO are known in comparison with Monero, so rings can be deconstructed overtime.
As with most contentious issues, there doesn't seem to be much agreement within the community. Unless someone acts, the default outcome is that the status quo remains.
I'd love to see more support for privacy within the base protocol, but I don't think waiting patiently is going to produce that result. Someone will have to find a way to implement it within the current rules and then just go ahead and do it. I'm no coder, but I *think* it's possible to create something vaguely akin to Liquid, which would yield greater privacy, but hopefully in a way that is more accessible (Liquid is somewhat permissioned and relies on 'functionaries').
If there's a way to improve on that design and either eliminate the need for functionaries, or make it so that every user who has opted in is performing the role of a functionary, we'd have a privacy-oriented sidechain, where users could come and go as they please. That way, we aren't forcing it upon anyone who doesn't want it.
I'd love to see more support for privacy within the base protocol, but I don't think waiting patiently is going to produce that result. Someone will have to find a way to implement it within the current rules and then just go ahead and do it. I'm no coder, but I *think* it's possible to create something vaguely akin to Liquid, which would yield greater privacy, but hopefully in a way that is more accessible (Liquid is somewhat permissioned and relies on 'functionaries').
If there's a way to improve on that design and either eliminate the need for functionaries, or make it so that every user who has opted in is performing the role of a functionary, we'd have a privacy-oriented sidechain, where users could come and go as they please. That way, we aren't forcing it upon anyone who doesn't want it.
Jump to: