Topic: Litecoin implementing confidential transactions - page 3. (Read 3436 times)

lol at the beginning when they say that litecoin is superior to bitcoin, because of faster confirmation time, which mean more orphan and no congestion, which mean because volume of litecoin is so small is not funny to compare it to bitcoin, really stupid

I saw that tweet and I've used it number of times, but I don't remember if it was back in 2014. Charlie Lee is indeed implying about adoption and that is what is the most important part of the digital currency's evolution. The fact that several things are proposed for the LTC development doesn't mean that Lee is giving up on his words, it's in fact the opposite.

In the mean time, retweet! Even Charlie Lee did. https://twitter.com/FAILCommunity/status/777822871154483200

Good coins (LTC among the greatest) must be supported, no matter if you (don't) "invest" in them and/or hold some.

EDIT: Whoever talks bad for Litecoin is a hypocrite to me.

I think the statement that years of claiming "Litecoin does not need development" has occurred is somewhat misleading. It comes from a single tweet from a conversation between Charlie Lee in a conversation with user Darth Camel (December 2014). What Charlie actually said was "LTC doesn't need development right now. Adding gimmicks does not help a currency succeed. Liquidity, merchants and users does".

The conversation was between an individual looking for more positive news for litecoin such as being added to coinbase. Charlie Lee goes on encouraging him to find ways to contribute to litecoin rather than just expecting others to make it happen.

This statement has been used for years, taken out of context and is just another example of how special interests will use a simple sentence to mislead those interested in cryptocurrency but unwilling to do any research. The fact is Charlie never said "Litecoin does not need development" and was primarily trying to make a point about adoption. It still remains true that liquidity, merchants and users are needed for adoption in general (of any coin).

Here's a link complete with a inaccurate title to bait the reader (what a surprise from cryptocoinsnews.com) for those interested in the truth:

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/litecoin-creator-charlie-lee-claims-litecoin-not-need-development-says-adding-gimmicks-not-help-currency-succeed/

Because using non-anon coins on dark markets will not be targeted ?  That's silly.


As far as I know, Bin Laden didn't do anything on Silk Road... Dark markets are for small fish.  Really big guys do it in the back rooms of government itself.  The government is not interested in taking out small fish, except if it is to scare away too much small fish.  Dark markets are the little people wanting some freedom, nothing more.  That pisses off governments all right, but not like Bin Laden.

And again, the essence is distributed systems.  Silk Road was a centralized system with a single point of failure.  A distributed dark market is much, much harder to take down.


Because bitcoin mixing is already simple to take down.   The easiest way is to put a honeypot mixer node at the FBI, and you gently mixing your bitcoins on the FBI computers.  The second point is that mixing is far and in between, and only adds somewhat more burden to the chain analysis.  Also, about ALL people involved in mixing are worth hunting, as they have something to hide AND TAKE RISKS TO DO SO.

No, mixing is actually worse than not mixing on the bitcoin chain concerning privacy and "staying under the radar".


Mixing on top of monero would actually BREAK anonymity more than add to it.  Because you have to leak much more information about you doing so, than not doing so, and trust the mixer to forget about you.


No.


There's a difference between "hacking" and "breaking crypto".   If the crypto is good, it cannot be hacked.  DES has never been hacked.  It has been brute-forced, but that was to be foreseen and no "hack".  56 bits is now searchable.


Logic.  What makes crypto hard, clumsy, unpractical and a pain, is the need for distributed trustlessness.  That can only have one intention that makes sense: anarchy.  If you have a state or any other centralized body that is to be trusted (because it is trustworthy, or because it has the biggest guns and you are afraid of it), then EVERYTHING is much easier to do with a centralized trusted agent.  All the hassle of crypto is unnecessary then.  It simply doesn't make sense to go through all that difficulty, if you can trust a central agent.  And a state cannot have it that you don't trust it.  So crypto and state don't go together.  At best, one can tolerate the other up to a point.  If you give in to the centralized trusted entity which requires it, you obtain fiat, which is WAY WAY more practical than all that mess with block chains, proof of work, huge files, confirmation times, and irreversible transactions.

The ONLY sensible reason to go for crypto is anarchy.  And that's why I'm interested in crypto, and only for that reason.

Crypto can also be a zero-sum betting casino, but *you don't even need block chains for that*.  You can just as well bet on exchange "fiat" coins.


I already told you that I don't trade crypto.  I think that is retarded, to play in a zero-sum scamming casino.



If the goal of crypto is not to go underground, hiding from these governements, or outright trying to destroy them, crypto has no reason to exist, anon or not.  But believe me, in that case it is better to try anon.

@dinofelis
For one thing using an anon coin on dark markets will become a "target".
This can not be denied no matter how hard you try and rationalize around it.

And it is you that missed the point in my ANON rants.. a false sense of security.
Read what it says on Monero Hoodies ?



And we are not talking about the financial cost of doing a 51% attack on a block-chain.
We are talking about hackers out there who do shit because they are cunts.

Such as the Ubuntu forums hack seen below via a Google image search..



Further more.
You don't grasp the potential value to a government investigation.
Lets say for example an NSA / FBI agent needs to break through to track a Terrorist on the *NEW* Silk Road.
The cost to them may be of no concern what so ever.
You think the US govt cared about buying a Lambo for a guy in exchange for a phone number to get Bin Laden ?
They prob would have paid any amount of money.

Besides how do you know technically that Monero's ANON defeated is the same security level of Bitcoin using "Mixing" in this hypothetical scenario.
Who says people would know it is compromised then and only then deliberately START using "Mixing" services with Monero.
Unless they are already doing it on top of Monero's in-built ANON security.

See how your retorts crash & burn in flames ?  

This is your trademark Monero Cockiness™
They are quick to press those T-Shirts / Hoodies making Bold claims but as you can all see Dino here in his glee to defend Monero sort of forgot about various aspects.
Why ?
Because all of Earth is smarter than 5 shill's here.
It's a numbers game.. hackers just need 1 win.. vs the other side needs permanent perfection.
And have you looked around on the web lately ?
What hasn't been hacked ? Bitcointalk 3 or 4 times ?  
..we are about due again  

And Dino that FIAT comment was retarded.
Who the fuck are you to declare the intentions of Crypto ?
I see you showed up here SEP 2014.. probably for Doge Coin LOL
But the guy you quoted is right.
It will never happen !
So your retort in response is funny.. an admission of failed adoption.
AKA: First world big govt's are not going to support ANON coins.. ever !
So the adoption potential of these ANON coins is handicapped from day 1 and worse..
they will be a target by govt's and hackers alike around the globe.
And even worse considered criminals coins by the public.. a pedo, guns & meth coin.
Not something i want any part of that is for sure.

And LTC adding an anon feature ?
If it CAN be used to hide criminal activity then it will be.
And it will get the reputation for it and the same treatment outlined earlier.
You can not launch a currency then dictate what it's used for.
Like coin dev's who think their coin will not be targeted by pump groups.
Intentions don't mean squat.

If you want to use something that is accepted and in line with legalization, then you should use fiat.  There's nothing better than fiat to be in line with the law, if that is what you want.  Crypto has no use for you in that case.

Now that's funny.  If monero's anonymity would be *totally* broken, that is, if the whole chain would be deanonymized, that would mean that dark markets would be at the same point of exposure as if they had directly used bitcoin, where the chain IS ALREADY de-anonymized.  So even if the whole of monero's crypto were to fail you wouldn't be worse off than if you had used bitcoin from the start.

I agree with you that security and crypto are difficult. As you say, while you want to do something else, you have to make sure that you don't make one single fatal error.  While the attacker needs only one success and can fail as many times as he wants.

However, you forget something.  That is that the attack has to be worth it, because nevertheless, the attacker will have to spend means and effort.  So the higher the barrier, the higher the price before it starts paying off.  If you do not agree with this, then I guess you don't lock doors (after all, a locked door has to have everything perfect, and a burglar only needs one single success), you don't use passwords and you don't use ANY security measure, in computing or otherwise, because the same reasoning will tell you that it is useless: any attacker will only need to find ONE failure, while your security will have to get everything right.

You're thinking too much in absolutes.  Absolute security doesn't exist.  Even if you've never done anything illegal, it is perfectly possible that you have been in the wrong place at the wrong moment, and even the most law-abiding citizen can be convicted to the most severe sentences ; as a mistake, or as some sacrifice for one or other cover-up.  I believe that more than half of the death penalties in the US are on innocents.  So much for "trusting the state for your security".  

And IF you're doing something that might displease someone of TPTB, they will find a "legal" way to make you pay for it and induce subjugation in anyone even thinking the same way... IF YOU MAKE IT EASY for them.  This is why you have to make it difficult for them.  Difficult doesn't mean "impossible".  It means that the price they have to pay to do so, is sufficiently high so that the small crime you're committing by displeasing a member of TPTB isn't worth the effort.

In other words, the more you can make it difficult to have DRAGNET security violations of your privacy, the harder it is for TPTB to silence efficiently EVERY opposing voice.  That is not the same as guaranteeing that you can do what you want behind an iron-wall security that cannot be broken.  It means that they have  to single you out, and really really want you to do so.  And they will get you.  But they won't silence everybody that way.

Illegality is an absolute necessity.  Laws have to be broken, and law enforcement has to be inefficient to a certain point.   Even if you are OK with the idea of a state and law (I'm not, personally, but even if you think that state and law are necessary and good by itself as a concept), there must be room for illegality.

I heard this from the mouth of a lawyer, who made the compelling argument like this.  Back in the 1950ies, homosexuality was illegal in the United Kingdom.   Imagine that law enforcement of that law had been perfect.  Imagine that ALL homosexual activity had been found out, procecuted, and the punishments (prison and "medical treatment") perfectly applied to every one single homosexual in the UK.

There would not have been a homosexual movement.  They would all have been in prison and "medically treated".  There would not have been a WAY to even CHANGE THE LAW, as nobody would ask for it - given that no-one being homosexual would have been around, not in prison.  Illegality is needed for society, even with law and state, to be able to evolve.  Something that is considered illegal at a certain point in time, must be able to exist "underground" in order for it even to have a chance to change law and opinion about it.
Abortion is the same story.  If every single woman having recourse to illegal abortion, and every person helping her, would have been perfectly taken care of by the law as it used to be, there wouldn't have been any case to plead for it to become legal.   Free radio emissions, the same.  It used to be illegal (at least in Europe) to have free radiotransmitters.  If every free radio would have been taken down within the first half hour of emission, the now legal operation of non-state radio transmitters would never have seen the daylight.  

In other words, if law enforcement is perfect, society cannot evolve over ancient laws, because the alternative, demanding for the change of the law, would be so severely exterminated, that the demand would be gone.

My opinion is that "dark markets" are in exactly the same situation, and that one day, most of what is handled there, will be legal, BECAUSE sufficient dark markets existed.

The war on drugs is a lost cause, similar to the war on homosexuality.  But in order for that to change, you have to be able to let it exist in illegality until the laws adapt.

Ahh you arguments is full of facts and information, I can`t blow my mind with all the facts you gave us!


I  for start would like o know more how this would be implemented and used, I know no government gona accept pure anon coin, if it could be used so it be in line with legalization, I would welcome it

I don't just see prosecution as a problem.
It opens up a can of worms..
It will put an X on their back.

Govt's like the US, China and Russia will have an interest in exploiting the anon scheme.
What is it you all think agencies like the NSA do ?
There is people out there that are paid to circumvent shit like this.

That causes a wide range of problems.

Because then how do you circumvent security in the tech world ?
Well for one thing you can attack these so called anon coins with social engineering.
You can weazle your way in the back door by joining the dev team as a mole.
And if needed pull a code update like what happened with Cryptsy's Lucky7 coin hack theft.
If the govt only needs the attack vector to work once then who cares..

I can think of limitless problems with this shit actually and i have posted pretty much all of them already.
And you all acted like whiny little fucking assholes calling me names when i did.

I posted real serious issues and i was met with "Liek OMGZ teh Spoetnikz is teh TROLLZ FUDDING !!!111"

Put up a wall and you will have the hackers on your ass around the globe.
I seen a Russian govt sponsored public hacking contest online where they posted a prize for hacking TOR.

The US govt had attended the Black Hat Hackers conference in California some years back.
The FBI put on a demo with a power point presentation showing attendees how to hack a WIFI router with public free tools and it worked so well i had 100% free internet from around 2008 until 2013.

Who is going to win smooth vs humanities smartest and best hackers who are paid any amount of money to hack any target ?
Who you going to bet on ?
The hackers that need to break through 1 single time or the guy at Bitcointalk who needs to have a flawless record ?

If hackers were able to punch through in a key area with Monero it could help unravel almost the whole dark market leading to a mass of arrests.. your security hinges on smoothie and a couple other amateur cocky coders thinking they can outwit EARTH's best & brightest bad guys.

That is if we assume they have not been bought.. because lets not forget we are talking about humans that can be bribed.
Osama Bin Laden was nabbed because of a Lambo bought for a rat in the middle east..
In return for a phone number.

The head of the Bitcoin foundation was given an invite to attend a private meeting with the FBI and he did.
What do think they discussed ?
I believe it was Gavin who used to get a 1 million dollars a year paycheck for his "work" on the foundation.
And he said publicly that they the FBI just wanted to ask questions about Bitcoin.
..ya i bet they did (so they can hack it)

or.. bribe him.

and i bet all it took was giving him a junior g-man card.
All they probably had to do to put him in their pocket was declare him an FBI agent.
That probably stroked his ego hard and he was eager to run him and tell his wife.
Waiting in the mansion from the multi million dollar Bitcoin shit.

So uhhhhhhhhh you all love to speculate about WHO Satoshi is right ?
The biggest most asked question in crypto history ?

So what would happen if Monero got big ?
What would you see ?
You would see Spoetnik and no one else EVER asking who the fuck launched Monero.
And how Spoetnik pointed out 100 times how it was super fishy it was launched as Bytecoin..
then dropped and the original dev surprisingly bolted from the scene never to be scene or heard from again.
I have postulated 100 times that wouldn't it have made more sense that the original dev never left ?
Wouldn't it make more sense that he simply changed his name while he changed the coin name ?
eh Smooth ?

Ever heard of common sense retards ?

Ever thought to even ask how Monero started ?

Of course not.
None of you ever have.. i am the only one on the record bringing this up over & over.
But..
If Monero got big you all would be asking then now wouldn't you LOL

And don't you think that matters when we are discussing the anon coins security when all of Silk Road hinges on smooth ? or or who ever the fuck he or the others are ?

I don't trust any of those pricks.. they have proven to be deceitful to push their agenda in the past lots.

Think carefully people you get 1 chance to be secure.
Hackers need to bust through the defense 1 time.

And people who are more knowledgeable like me are warning you then you should listen the fuck up.

Remember my Cryptsy example earlier ?
Well who was in charge of protecting the user base of mouthy dipshit greedy brat cheer leaders at Cryptsy ?
A kid named Mullick who told me in 2013 he had no previous coding experience.
And i seen quickly how his attitude changed in time.. he got more & more cocky here in crypto.
Later he denied saying that too when i confronted him with it.
And i was right he did not know how to code because he always had to pay Shakezulu to fix his coin CAPS when it broke while the coin was disabled on Cryptsy until he could get his buddy cloner to fix it for him.
And yet he of all people was the guy in charge of wallets and checking the code and compiling the daemons for cryptsy etc.
HE was the kid doing code review BEFORE adding them to Cryptsy.
Which he failed miserably with when Lucky7coin was used to hack Cryptsy for over 12 million via Github.

I can post quotes of Cryptsy staff bragging in detail about their security methods.
Worked real well didn't it ?  

Get it ?
Get what i am driving at here ?

It's easy to talk shit.
It won't be as easy when all of Earth is after you though.

"Security" signs are actually "HACK ME" signs..

ANON coins are a really fucking dumb idea period /.

---

EDIT:

Also if a coin is ANON optional ..it will still be regarded and treated and used as an ANON coin anyway.
See what i just wrote above.. that all does not change because it's "optional"

I have to say I don't have much faith for LTC development.

You're probably right about everything (since I'm not a coder), but I can compare it with Internet. The blockchain could become something like Internet 2.0 where it would not depend on "Internet 1.0". For example I was ISP back in 2003 until the end of 2010 when I sold my network. When I first started, the Internet of my network was 3 mbps. By the end of 2005 (giving the fact I was working alone and didn't had much money) every end-user had 100 mbps download and 50 mbps upload. Of course, back then Bulgaria was pretty advanced when it comes to Internet speed.

Anyway, future will tell.

Nope.  Block chain is slower, clumsier, much less accepted, riskier, more volatile, and isn't CAPABLE of replacing VISA...
If it is to replace normal, law-abiding, official sales with all taxes included, block chain is in almost all cases a worse user experience than just typing in your visa card number on a web site, receiving a confirmation code on your smart phone, and done with it.  And if there are problems, scams, ... you can complain, and get your money back.  That's also why there is a small fee to be paid.

If it is to replace the same functionality in the same circumstances as VISA, hell, bitcoin lost the game even before it started ; so that cannot be the goal.

Let's just say that the blockchain (which is not all about money, but in this case...) is VISA/Paypal, but on another level. Something like: physical cash > VISA > blockchain. Thing is that companies like G4S will have A HUGE problem with the blockchain, because they won't be needed.

Honestly, I fail to see the purpose then.  "internet money".  Hell, I can pay everywhere with VISA or Paypal. 

And "clickbetting" on a zerosum game, isn't betclick or the like good enough ?  And then there is the real stock market.  One doesn't need any block chain to bet on "exchange" tokens, no ?

You don't need anon for that, but you don't even need block chain for that.  Only web sites and web site IOU on exchanges.
The game is the same: you can only make money by ripping off someone else ; and in the process, the intermediate agent (the exchange) takes a percentage of your battles.  What's the point ?

Nah, can't fully agree with you. I think that the main purpose of cryptocurrencies are to be "internet money" and/or to create some extra wealth (which is like the Satan to the top 1% (or even much less) of the world's population). If I had to compare anonymity vs. "Satan", then I would say the chance is 40/60 (i.e. states considers themselves more endangered from "internet money/wealth" than anonymity).

Of course.  But then all the others have lost their purpose.  I think it is a great thing if litecoin can include anon features, even though it is a break of the original contract, because that will legitimize to the anon side, which it should have been and is  a fundamental flaw in bitcoin (not making any accusations to Satoshi: you cannot get everything right the first time).

That said, it somehow kills the immutability of protocol intend of litecoin, because anonymity or not is an INTEND, not just a technicality. 

Does it matter if it is a move made of desperation? If they pull it off and make a good anonymous coin out of litecoin, who will be desperate now? Monero is accepted in the darknet market so they are ahead of everyone with the competing anonymous coins. Only Litecoin could come after them in that niche because it already has the existing infrastructure.

It is a good move for them and we should all support it so that we have more practical options of anonymous coins to choose from.

Maybe its just a gimmick to increase the interest in Litecoin, but I don't see it that way. I would allow myself to compare LTC with a good old fashioned factory where the handmade production is with a very high quality and people working there are with a 15+ years of experience. Then all of a sudden, a factory with robots and high tech pops up and starts producing the same product @ low costs. It doesn't have the quality of the good old fashioned product, but they are selling it in a much better package and at a lower price. You can guess the outcome.

"to add the confidential transactions feature" as developer xinxi states


imo is pandering to the trolls who have no interest in litecoin

people could guess by now i'm a big fan of litecoin, but i am certainly not a fan of this road.