Topic: [neㄘcash, ᨇcash, net⚷eys, or viᖚes?] Name AnonyMint's vapor coin? - page 27. (Read 95279 times)

Oh shit, you're right.

/thread

Zerocash fully obscures the block chain. Cryptonote doesn't obscure meta-data correlation.

Why are we wasting my entire day on such a simple revelation?

Well I hate the word anonymity because it doesn't mean a damn thing other than not having a name attached (and what is meant by "name" here?). Unclear to the point of useless. I prefer to say that the chain is obscured or opaque or private. But none of these words are entirely precise.

Cash doesn't have a transcript of previous transections printed on it. If it did, that would cause issues.

Really? I have no battles in Bitcoin about fungibility. All my Bitcoins so far have been acceptable to all merchants. No one can yet block a Bitcoin transaction, thus they are fungible. No one can yet force laws on every netizen requiring them to go to jail if they accept someone's bad Bitcoins.

If we ever get to that point in the future (then you even were the one who argued in the past) that anonymity won't help us.


Who has suffered a loss of fungibility with their Bitcoins?

You don't understand monetary definitions and theory if you conflate anonymity with fungibility.


False. Cash is rarely anonymous, but is most always fungible. And it is very rarely censored (because can't).

Sorry major failure in your logic.


So this all about who has bragging rights?

This is competition between you and I?

Please say yes. I will gladly accept the challenge.

I believe you will eventually come to realize I didn't make a wrong turn by choosing to deprioritize anonymity.

Please tell me this a competition. Please.

Shelby versus smooth. I accept that challenge. Are we on?

And how does that translate into a market for Cryptonote? Sounds like gibberish to me.

LOL

  Made me laugh out loud

Disagree. Without obscuring the chain you will have constant battles over fungibility even with censorship resistance. Your use of the term, and understanding of the monetary concept behind it, is incorrect. There is essentially no censorship in Bitcoin today (ignoring Luke-Jr), nor any real sign of it any time soon, but there are already fungibility issues and they are getting worse not better.


Of course. Better, you must have both.

You made a wrong turn on this when you decided to drop anonymity to launch a coin in your name. See I am helping you now. Just a couple of programmers talking about silly ideas on a forum.

Anonymity is not a product. It may not even be a feature. It is just an attribute of how something works.

Step outside the Bitcointalk Matrix and you will see.

The unbanked have no use for anonymity. Dissidents is not a large, lucrative market. Edward Snowden may be your sole users. And to the extent there are people who want to use anonymity for those reasons, they will be even more inclined to use Zerocash anonymity so they can't get caught from their meta-data. You seem to be forgetting a key fact, that is compromise of the masterkey for Zerocash does not break the anonymity.

Come on. Corporations is where the meat & potatos is for privacy block chains likely will be.


Even if so, Zerocash is superior in every way for anonymity. The only criticism is about coin supply, but if anonymity is your main problem (e.g. dissidants, etc), then you don't care about coin supply as long as you can complete your transaction anonymously.


Yup and that is why zk-snarks are incredibly important. That is why 2 months ago I started a thread on trying to analyze them from first principles.


Without permissionless, decentralized block chain design, anonymity won't help you maintain fungibility, because the anonymity can be stripped off by the top-down controllers.

And if you do have permissionless, decentralized block chain design, then you don't absolutely need anonymity to have fungibility. Ideally you'd have both. But if you have to choose a priority, then anonymity is the lower priority.



You are supporting the logic in my prior post.



And so why are you treating me unfairly in your community threads when I try to raise awareness to stop wasting time down dead ends and begin to transition asap?

Deleting my rebuttals to assholes who are treating me like shit and you don't delete their ad hominem attacks. Because you are beholden to your community and can't be objective and fair because of it! You became the bitch to the assholes and then had to fuck off one of the developers in our ecosytem (me). We developers are the ones who write the code. The assholes just muck up everything.

I am thinking best to adopt zk-snarks because (in high level conceptual thinking which could possibly be missing some key detail) it is more general to any sort of block chain contract (script) a business might want to do, not just currency. As well, I argued in the prior post that businesses will not likely adopt a privacy solution for currency which forces them to trust Tor or I2P to obscure their IP address meta-data (and that isn't even the only meta-data that will need to be obscured and some other meta-data might even be impossible to obscure).

Thus I argue if corporations are going to adopt privacy on block chains, they will choose zk-snarks in spite of your arguments that the masterkey must be created in a secure way. Corporations trust the institutions of society, e.g. the police, the courts, the government, etc.. Also afaics corporations are sort of a hierarchical structure with smaller companies serving larger companies, and so they are likely to fall in line to what larger corporations demand for interoption. What I am saying is that the top-down structure of corporatism means accepting that someone at the very top gets to create the masterkey for Zerocash.

Of course I would prefer an anonymity solution that has no caveats. But after all my study (and even inventions of anonymity solutions) I have learned there can't exist anonymity systems w/o caveats.

Thus if we are choosing which set of caveats (tradeoffs) we prefer to develop around, I think we must incorporate the needs of markets into our thought process.

I simply don't see any markets for Cryptonote style anonymity. I wish I could think of a market, but I can't. Whereas, zk-snarks seems to potentially have real business applications.

And that is damn unbiased opinion, because I have nothing to gain from zk-snarks. I have no knowledge of how to code them nor do I yet completely understand them. It doesn't give me any advantage whatsoever to come to the conclusion they are superior to develop around. Hell, I even have Zero Knowledge Transactions which is superior to RingCT which I had to abandon because I came to this realization. I am a loser too.

I don't know why you guys are so unable to discuss issues without freaking out. Smooth if you are truly diversified, then why can't you act more calm. Did you promise all the speculators that you were surety? Remember Proverbs says, "Don't be surety for another".

Look way back in 2014 when you launched Monero, I told you smooth and fluffypony that IP address correlation was the weakness. Fluffypony proceeded to try to integrate I2P. I warned you all many times that was not an adequate direction. But you wouldn't listen.

And now you attack me and are angry at me for trying to help you not waste more of your time and effort.

I simply don't understand you guys. Why can't you be more open-minded and also more amicable to people who want to discuss matters?

Is it pride? Somebody shot your baby.

I think the actual market is just ordinary electronic currency, probably at least initially to underserved markets such as the unbanked or underbanked, dysfunctional financial systems, high risk businesses (even if completely legal), etc. That doesn't necessarily mean a super high volume of transactions for coffee or on-chain gambling. That stuff was and is likely a dead end for Bitcoin and Monero too. Occasional transactions for important purposes are fine.

The idea of a transparent ledger is a bizarre construction that only exists because it was the first "decentralized" way discovered to solve the double spend problem. It is very counterintuitive to people and businesses that their transactions are visibly broadcast to the world, and many (will and do) reject the concept. Bitcoin will continue to suffer with fungibility crises because they are really inherent in the model of a currency on a transparent blockchain being half-baked. With each such crisis, appreciation for Monero will grow.

They may or may not care about being spied on by the NSA (nor Google or Facebook, though in this case they probably want some controls on it), and I suspect mostly not. Thus we may not appeal to the hard core anarchists, conspiracy theorists, terrorists, etc. unless the robustness against such adversaries can be improved, which is unclear.

None of this means that Monero in its current state can't be improved, nor that it will be. I now expect Monero to be around and actively developed for at least 5-10 years, at which point it will likely look very different than it does today.

Refute it by telling me of markets for Cryptonote. You can't.

I am helping you not waste your effort and time. You of course are free to continue in your delusion or you can simply refute me and I will admit it if you do.

Edit: there are already markets for crypto in general, so of course that is an irrelevant point.

Cripes I try to help you guys and you still aren't satisfied.

I change from the Monero Speculation thread to the Monero Technical thread because you all told me to.

Now you tell me that I am off topic here also.

Where is the Monero thread where I can speak freely?

Can't deposit into CryptoKingdom without Monero, so there is at least one use case (though you can certainly play for free).

This statement is unsupportable unless you consider every possible use, or produce a mathematical proof that reduces it (in a formal sense) to some clearly superior (for every potential use) alternative.

You suggested a post or two later that it might be useful for criminals. I don't know whether it is or not. If so, that disproves the statement. I submit that you also don't know whether it is useful for this purpose or another, thus your statement above is incorrect.

A correct statement would be that you can not see a use for Monero. Fair enough.

Of course, many, many, many people have said the same thing about crypto altogether and I'm not sure they are wrong.


 

There is nothing available for reliable anonymous transactions. For unreliable anonymity, I might as well just use Bitcoin and jump over to my local McDonalds on the unregistered WiFi connection. So yes there is a better alternative, Bitcoin. And it is more widely accepted.

I would not entrust not receiving jail time on the assumption my meta-data can't be correlated, neither with Monero nor Bitcoin. The only anonymous things I would do would be legal things I want to hide from for example the public, but not from the NSA (and the employees of the NSA). In that case, I can do this reasonably well using Bitcoin.

I can't make the sources of my transaction untraceable with Bitcoin (unless I use some unreliable mixer, CoinJoin, or CoinShuffle), i.e. if someone wanted to premine and then make it impossible to connect them to the premined coins. So maybe we can argue that Cryptonote/Monero would help people who want to create scams. But decentralized exchanges might accomplish the same (not sure about that yet, still analyzing them).

In short, I just can't see what is the large market for this unreliable anonymity in Cryptonote as compared to the unreliable anonymity in Bitcoin?

Hey I am not happy it worked out that way. As much as I don't like the boastfulness of some Monero's community (not all the devs), I still would prefer if anonymity was realistic. I am saddened. And especially pissed off to have expended so much effort on anonymity and not have realized sooner.

Actually the market for Monero might be criminals. They may have the incentive to study how to guard their meta-data and willing to take the risk on the combinatorial unmasking (since a criminal mind seems to ignore the prospect of jail time). But they need to be mixed with regular users, otherwise their anonymity sets may not be large enough. I don't want to be in a project who sole main use case is criminals.


Hitler claiming to support Libertarian principles (e.g. anonymity).  

Have you ever heard of the concept of respecting the freedom of others. I am flabberghast that you think you can tell me what I can write about. Do I tell you what you can write about.

Is there a better alternative for anonymous transactions currently working and available?

Please confine yourself to that question.

There not much one can say to a post like that. :shrug:

It still doesn't change the fact that Monero is useless. Attacking me to divert attention away from facts is often a trait that bagholders stoop to.

Note I have not denied anything about my coding or lack thereof (not totally lacking, my github is not empty).

The thing is that you can continue to try to attack my reputation in this forum, and how will that work out when I actually did launch something. What can you say then? Will you then try to claim I can't continue developing it.

I was trying to get some organization around what we all need to be doing to focus our time, effort, and resources.

Any way, please feel free to post. I have no need to censor you. What ever happens in the final outcome will be determined by actions.

At this point, I am evaluating whether crypto is worth focusing on or not. I am certainly in evaluation mode.

I can only assume that you are extremely offended that you decided to invest based on the notion that if you invest with a group of solid devs, then you are guaranteed to be able to buy low and sell high. Sorry if you have a problem with reality. Seems you have a lack of experience with software venture investing. That isn't my fault. I am doing factual inquiry and trying to evaluate reality. You instead are lashing out for your own failure as an investor. It seems you may think that investing is about controlling and ridiculing criticism. Whereas, I know that software is all about marketing and implementation that adheres to the marketing analysis.