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

[drawingthesun]

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.

[1714078324]

1714078324

[1714078324]

1714078324

[1714078324]

1714078324

[oakpacific]

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.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

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.

[archangel689]

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.

[o]

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.

[justusranvier]

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.

[archangel689]

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.

[crazy_rabbit]

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?

[moderate]

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.

[amincd]

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://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=248865.0

[moderate]

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]

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://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334112.msg3614537#msg3614537

Certifications:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=300809.0

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

[moderate]

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://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334112.msg3614537#msg3614537

Certifications:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=300809.0

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]

If you'd back up your claims about certifications with a link I could actually check it. I'm not going to just take your word for it.

As for Hearn's comment, there's nothing there that hasn't been addressed.

[Peter Todd]

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).

Ha, the Dark Wallet Certification thing? You are so incredibly wrong:

We propose that the outcome of this meeting be, at minimum, the establishment of a v1 "Dark Wallet Certification", a set of best-practice guidelines for wallets focused on decentralization and anonymity.

Emphasis mine. It's going to end up as some fancy wiki page or manual or something with a bunch of strongly worded and not so strongly worded recommendations. I'm not going to be surprised if there's multiple competing versions. Some respected developers might go and publicly state that they believe "Electrum v1.2.foo" complies with all the recommendations and isn't trying to steal your coins and sell your data to the NSA.

You know, if a bunch of anarchists can't meet up in some commune in Italy and collectively agree on that, I dunno what it takes to be decentralized these days...

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.

For the sake of argument, lets assume Mike is a android built by the NSA to infiltrate us all.

Do you think you're going to to a better job of stopping said Bitcoin-development subverting android by a: complaining, or b: getting shit done.

I'll give you a hint: someone else already did the job of complaining much better than you're doing. Lets count that: four tightly written paragraphs, one verbatim quote, cross-posted on two forums, and results? Over three main threads we've got 32k hits and 811 replies on this forum alone, including responses by people worth listening to like Adam Back and Gregory Maxwell, an article on CoinDesk, CoinJoin bounty is up +8 BTC and the Dark Wallet campaign is nearly fully funded - that's some effective complaining. Not so effective computer security, but yeah... I'm pissed off about that.

You on the other hand, you're just annoying people like myself who are actually flying halfway across the world in two weeks to go make CoinJoin happen and make Mike's misguided ideas about blacklists irrelevant. So I dunno, unless you want to surprise me by showing me that you're good at getting shit done, go away. Delete your trolling posts while you're at it.

And you know, if you want to get better at it, you can start by saying things that actually make sense.

[moderate]

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).

Ha, the Dark Wallet Certification thing? You are so incredibly wrong:

We propose that the outcome of this meeting be, at minimum, the establishment of a v1 "Dark Wallet Certification", a set of best-practice guidelines for wallets focused on decentralization and anonymity.

Emphasis mine. It's going to end up as some fancy wiki page or manual or something with a bunch of strongly worded and not so strongly worded recommendations. I'm not going to be surprised if there's multiple competing versions. Some respected developers might go and publicly state that they believe "Electrum v1.2.foo" complies with all the recommendations and isn't trying to steal your coins and sell your data to the NSA.

You know, if a bunch of anarchists can't meet up in some commune in Italy and collectively agree on that, I dunno what it takes to be decentralized these days...

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.

For the sake of argument, lets assume Mike is a android built by the NSA to infiltrate us all.

I stopped here, but I tried very hard to not stop earlier. Your guidelines thing is exactly what I mentioned in a thread where another developer is wishing for certifications, several of them.

I have no idea why you put NSA there, I'm talking about Google.

[tacotime]

As others have said, it looks like CoinJoin etc which already function through the blockchain work and are available to use now rather than later.

It just looks like the end user at this point doesn't have a lot of interest in it.

[behindtext]

As others have said, it looks like CoinJoin etc which already function through the blockchain work and are available to use now rather than later.

It just looks like the end user at this point doesn't have a lot of interest in it.

suffice it to say that i'm rather familiar with the fact that users rarely seek out security.

if mixing and privacy protection is a bolt-on service for BTC, you are right to call out that few people will opt in. having a coin that is private by default would be a big win imo.

[corebob]

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

I would not buy that argument just yet. If bitcoin dies, sure, but there is no reason why several alternative coins can't be in flux at the same time.

[anti-scam]

Could a Bitcoin developer clarify whether these changes make Zerocoin appropriate for inclusion in Bitcoin or not? As far as I understand it the privacy provided by things like CoinJoin and CoinSwap aren't really comparable.