Zerocoin proofs reduced by 98%, will be released as an alternative coin. - page 2.

moderate

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

nearly dead

Quote from: amincd on November 18, 2013, 12:17:00 AM

About the Mike Hearn comment controversy:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qtevg/zerocoin_reduces_proof_size_by_98_plans_to/cdgb3ov

Hearn explaining himself:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3614537

Certifications:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/faq-on-the-payment-protocol-300809

You need to actually read what people have written instead of accepting the claims being made at face value.

That certifications link missed by a long shot the certifications I'm referring to, I'm talking about people (core developers) mixing open source with certifications based on features (HINT: it is even more recent than mike's thing).

I see you like Mike as all your links are from him, so here is another one: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qmbtu/mike_hearn_chair_of_the_bitcoin_foundations_law/cdeicu0. You have to weight in the company funding Mike's development, you can't ignore that and you also can't completely blame Mike for his actions, or attempts, after knowing that.

amincd

hero member

Activity: 772

Merit: 501

About the Mike Hearn comment controversy:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qtevg/zerocoin_reduces_proof_size_by_98_plans_to/cdgb3ov

Hearn explaining himself:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3614537

Certifications:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/faq-on-the-payment-protocol-300809

You need to actually read what people have written instead of accepting the claims being made at face value.

moderate

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

nearly dead

Quote from: amincd on November 17, 2013, 11:48:55 PM

Quote

Why, again, is it needed, you ask ? Well, start following some of the key developers for bitcoin and you will quickly realize that their line of thought are no longer aligned with the original proposal, or even with the idea of open source software.

This is FUD. I've seen nothing at all to show that, and I have followed their statements and positions closely. They've shown themselves to be as committed to an open source, decentralized currency that protects user privacy as anyone.

The fact you haven't seen anything doesn't make it FUD, it just disqualifies your claim that you have followed their positions closely.

See Mike Hearn (no need to point out where, should be obvious enough for you that follows everything so closely), see the interests of the Bitcoin Foundation, see others talking about certifications.

amincd

hero member

Activity: 772

Merit: 501

Quote

Why, again, is it needed, you ask ? Well, start following some of the key developers for bitcoin and you will quickly realize that their line of thought are no longer aligned with the original proposal, or even with the idea of open source software.

This is FUD. I've seen nothing at all to show that, and I have followed their statements and positions closely. They've shown themselves to be as committed to an open source, decentralized currency that protects user privacy as anyone.

Anyway, this is a good proposal for how Zerocoin can be launched to work symbiotically with Bitcoin:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/adapting-to-the-release-of-zerocoin-248865

moderate

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

nearly dead

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on November 17, 2013, 08:13:25 AM

Zerocoin is pretty complicated comparing to the Bitcoin alternatives: CoinJoin, CoinSwap and CoinControl which offer practically the same functionality.

I don't think we need ZeroCoin anymore.

Zerocoin being released as an alt-coin is surprisingly needed, but it is okay if you don't notice that.

Why is it needed, you ask ? Well, because except for Litecoin, 99.999999% of all the other alt-coins are just crappy-coins from people that can manage to search-copy-replace text. Litecoin is only valuable to bitcoin because the main developer there can manage to contribute back.

Why, again, is it needed, you ask ? Well, start following some of the key developers for bitcoin and you will quickly realize that their line of thought are no longer aligned with the original proposal, or even with the idea of open source software.

crazy_rabbit

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME

Quote from: drawingthesun on November 17, 2013, 07:37:48 AM

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qtevg/zerocoin_reduces_proof_size_by_98_plans_to/

Of course the Bitcoin developers can easily take the improvements and add them into Bitcoin, making the alt-coin redundant.

However the time between release and testing to implementation into Bitcoin is important. If we wait too long Zerocoin might become a thing on its own and a worthy competitor (Especially if the Bitcoin developers refuse to add zerocoin because of the US government)

Remember that yes, we scoff at the alt-coins because they bring nothing new to the table, however an early developer of Bitcoin once said that if an alternative coin overtakes Bitcoin for no reason, it will destroy all confidence in crypto-currencies, but remember that this alt-coin would be the first ever to bring something truly beneficial and novel to the table.

We want this functionality, but in case Zerocoin does become a competitor getting in early might be a wise move to hedge against the prospect that the Bitcoin developers deciding that anonymous crypto-currency is bad.

Why not just implement Zerocoin now in Testnet to see if people actually care enough to use it?

archangel689

newbie

Activity: 15

Merit: 0

Quote from: justusranvier on November 17, 2013, 01:25:59 PM

When Bitcoin implements these features, it will threaten the value of their investment. Do you think they are going let that happen calmly? They will do everything they can to obstruct the change.

Including lobbying for the state to stop it, as if there isn't already enough incentive.

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: justusranvier on November 17, 2013, 12:51:11 PM

Quote from: Hyperbolical on November 17, 2013, 08:04:18 AM

I think so, Matthew Green mentioned that he was planning to implement Zerocoin into its own cryptocurrency. This seems like a reasonable idea me, it lets us test Zerocoin, and if it works well, we can merge it into Bitcoin (without the risk of damaging Bitcoin if something goes wrong).

That's a great idea from a purely technical perspective.

Realize that when money is at stake other factors will come into play.

Zerocoin is a highly desired feature. As soon as they release this coin, it's going to attract investment and it's exchange rate will rise quickly. People are going to put a considerable amount of money into Zerocoin.

When Bitcoin implements these features, it will threaten the value of their investment. Do you think they are going let that happen calmly? They will do everything they can to obstruct the change. They'll come over here and spread FUD, start arguments, and in general make life difficult for any developer seeking to push the change.

This happens already - If you go back to the beginning of this year and read through flamewars regarding scalability and the blocksize and pay attention to the people most fervently opposed to large transaction rates, with the most ridiculous and economically absurd arguments, and then check their posting history you'll find that in almost all cases they were heavily involved with altcoins.

o

member

Activity: 76

Merit: 10

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on November 17, 2013, 08:13:25 AM

Zerocoin is pretty complicated comparing to the Bitcoin alternatives: CoinJoin, CoinSwap and CoinControl which offer practically the same functionality.

I don't think we need ZeroCoin anymore.

The difference is that those are optional in Bitcoin. In order for them to work, it requires a critical mass which is not yet exist.

archangel689

newbie

Activity: 15

Merit: 0

Subverting the states power too much would result in the deployment of their nearly unlimited resources to combat the "problem." This makes me question whether or not these less complex solutions are adequate--or if any of the proposed solutions are.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Zerocoin is pretty complicated comparing to the Bitcoin alternatives: CoinJoin, CoinSwap and CoinControl which offer practically the same functionality.

I don't think we need ZeroCoin anymore.

oakpacific

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

If I understand it correctly, we can immediately take advantage of what they offer.

Create some cryptocoin exchanges on Tor, which trades both Bitcoins and zerocoins, people can then start laundering their money through the zerocoin blockchain.

drawingthesun

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1015

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qtevg/zerocoin_reduces_proof_size_by_98_plans_to/

Of course the Bitcoin developers can easily take the improvements and add them into Bitcoin, making the alt-coin redundant.

However the time between release and testing to implementation into Bitcoin is important. If we wait too long Zerocoin might become a thing on its own and a worthy competitor (Especially if the Bitcoin developers refuse to add zerocoin because of the US government)

Remember that yes, we scoff at the alt-coins because they bring nothing new to the table, however an early developer of Bitcoin once said that if an alternative coin overtakes Bitcoin for no reason, it will destroy all confidence in crypto-currencies, but remember that this alt-coin would be the first ever to bring something truly beneficial and novel to the table.

We want this functionality, but in case Zerocoin does become a competitor getting in early might be a wise move to hedge against the prospect that the Bitcoin developers deciding that anonymous crypto-currency is bad.

Topic: Zerocoin proofs reduced by 98%, will be released as an alternative coin. - page 2. (Read 8024 times)