Author

Topic: If we think privacy and fungibility is important, we need to work harder on that (Read 198 times)

legendary
Activity: 4130
Merit: 1307
Do you really want to softfork to add that functionality as a default?

A soft-forked change cannot be mandatory, it will always be opt-in, by definition.


Enhancing Bitcoin privacy is a must, and not for "die-hard" reasons. The privacy of transacting in a form of money affects it's effectiveness in performing the role of being money. The goal is to implement and popularise a form of independent electronic money, and so compromising Bitcoin's money characteristics is obviously anathema to that goal.



Agreed.  I am always surprised that users might be happy with "partial" anonymity.  I can achieve full privacy but it takes a bunch of effort and lots of internet experience to achieve it.  Why not make it easy and in fact default?

Agreed^2.   People tend to think, “I have nothing to hide”.  And they forget that is really, “I have nothing to hide right now”.  One never knows the type of despot who could take over.  Most people in Venezuela thought they had “nothing to hide” 25 years ago, then a socialist dictator took over and I’m sure many then realized, it is a good thing to have because he destroyed the country.  Ditto Cyprus. 

It happens everywhere and those are just the big things.  Do you really want your landlord to know you got a raise, or your boss knowing your rent?




hero member
Activity: 761
Merit: 606
Do you really want to softfork to add that functionality as a default?

A soft-forked change cannot be mandatory, it will always be opt-in, by definition.


Enhancing Bitcoin privacy is a must, and not for "die-hard" reasons. The privacy of transacting in a form of money affects it's effectiveness in performing the role of being money. The goal is to implement and popularise a form of independent electronic money, and so compromising Bitcoin's money characteristics is obviously anathema to that goal.



Agreed.  I am always surprised that users might be happy with "partial" anonymity.  I can achieve full privacy but it takes a bunch of effort and lots of internet experience to achieve it.  Why not make it easy and in fact default?
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
Do you really want to softfork to add that functionality as a default?

A soft-forked change cannot be mandatory, it will always be opt-in, by definition.


Enhancing Bitcoin privacy is a must, and not for "die-hard" reasons. The privacy of transacting in a form of money affects it's effectiveness in performing the role of being money. The goal is to implement and popularise a form of independent electronic money, and so compromising Bitcoin's money characteristics is obviously anathema to that goal.

staff
Activity: 3500
Merit: 6152
We also have TumbleBit but honestly, I don't think privacy should be the first priority as Bitcoin is already pseudonymous, scalability should be the first thing to work on. Mostly the lightning network and then MAST, Schnorr etc.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1074
The only way to introduce that in bitcoin without hardforks is to use a sidechain. Say, based on MimbleWimble.

Actually, no, CT for example can be a softfork change to Segwit.  That is just one way to go about it.  A hard fork is not a prerequisite. 



Do you really want to softfork to add that functionality as a default? I agree with Valle and rather add that as a "extra"

feature as a sidechain transaction. If Bitcoin goes full anonymity by default, it will get banned all over. {yes, the die hard

supporters wants that, but the average Joe are satisfied with pseudo-anonymity}  Undecided
sr. member
Activity: 278
Merit: 252
ABISprotocol on Gist
The only way to introduce that in bitcoin without hardforks is to use a sidechain. Say, based on MimbleWimble.

Actually, no, CT for example can be a softfork change to Segwit.  That is just one way to go about it.  A hard fork is not a prerequisite. 

full member
Activity: 177
Merit: 101
The only way to introduce that in bitcoin without hardforks is to use a sidechain. Say, based on MimbleWimble.
sr. member
Activity: 278
Merit: 252
ABISprotocol on Gist
Recently there has been work on ZeroLink by nopara73 (and others), and 'Ricochet,' which is itself already incorporated into the Samourai wallet. So the question certainly arises:  If we think privacy and fungibility is important, why haven't we been working harder on making this happen in Core?

I would submit that now is a good as time as any to revive the open discussion, and provide some code contributions, here:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/6568

If 2018 is really the year in which this could happen, let's not squander the opportunity.

Jump to: