So basically these two guys have been standing firm in their belief that a blockchain must be transparent to be "valid" or "real". Of course I'm telling them that is illogical and not true at all, because you can obfuscate the sending of coins to make it "private", but alas they're still saying otherwise. So any bitcoin/blockchain experts would like to chime in?
They're also saying that everyone must be able to see everything(In it's transparency so things like coinjoin, ring sigs, or zk snarks somehow automatically make a blockchain "invalid" is what they're saying) to make sure it's valid, of which is obviously not true as miners are the ones that determine the valid and invalid chains(as well as process transactions, etc).
What? What you're describing isn't privacy, so you went from being a supporter of privacy to a now supporter of total transparency? If I were to give you a $20 bill, will you be able to see who previously had that $20 bill? So then why would you not want the same thing for crtypcurrencies?
No, he's saying the only way to know that the cryptocurrency is real and spendable is because of the transparent blockchain that everyone agrees on to confirm the existence (and by extension, value) of it.
The $20 is not a good analogy because it actually has a central issuing authority. But if you absolutely had to compare, you could loosely compare the fact that you can hold that $20 bill in your hand and examine it and see that it looks like every other one, and everyone else agrees that it is $20 when they see it, and they accept that it has the value of $20.
Nobody here is advocating the ability to see "who" had it previously. That would not be anonymous. That would be bitcoin.
Cryptocurrencies are supposed to be decentralized and not have to rely on a centralized authority to make decisions or oversee things, you saying that we need an arbiter is taking a step back towards the traditional banking/monetary system, which is what we(everyone or mostly everyone involved with Bitcoin/cryptos) are against.
No argument there. Again, that is what the transparent blockchain is for. Non-fakeable agreement by majority, not by a central authority.
He's making the assumption that a coin's value is somehow tired to it's transparency. Every transaction that happens in the blockchain isn't "agreed" on or overseen by everyone involved with bitcoin, it's a automated process(Which is what protects against forking/exploiting bitcoin besides the 51% attack, etc), so his comment about how a coin must somehow be transparent to have value, is truly illogical. You don't need a transparent blockchain to assign value to coins, it's perfectly done on a private blockchain(even better), because each coin in the eyes of an onlooker, the same as the other(Fungibility) and there's no room to "discriminate" against coins based on their transaction history like in an transparent blockchain. So his case about "invisible" coins and etc has no bearing here, the only situation where the entire blockchain and everything involved with it is totally out from view, or "invisible" is Zerocash, the points that he's made so far has no bearing against the Cryptonote/Ring Sig anon scheme.
That's because it is! If a "blockchain" is not transparent, you cannot even call it a blockchain. Additionally, if there is no mining power confirming its blocks, then it is also not a real block chain (that's also why all Proof of Stake coins have no real value because there is no mining going on so the "public" ledger is completely fakeable/centralzed/manipulated/stolen/etc).
So not only does a coin need a transparent blockchain, it also needs decentralized processing power (read $$$ of equipment) to keep it going.
I don't blame you for having flawed understanding of what a blockchain really is. There is currently a widespread anti-bitcoin campaign that innundates us with the words "blockchain technology is the big takeaway from bitcoin" and preaches an ambiguous future with no mining, i.e. centralized ledgers...*sigh*
Every transaction that happens in the blockchain isn't "agreed" on or overseen by everyone involved with bitcoin,
Um, actually it is. You may need to go do a refresher course on bitcoin. That's called "consensus." Everyone DOES see the transactions, which are confirmed and reconfirmed continually by the miners with the most computing power on Earth, which are not fakeable or exploitable. Transparency is a necessary part of the equation.
Nobody will use something they cannot prove exists. Did you ever stop to think that you might be the one who is being a bit illogical here? That is like, the whole point of Bitcoin. You're completely missing the poetic beauty of Satoshi's design which creates value through decentralized trust and provability.
Tok's point still stands.
1) Frankly you're both not making any sense. The blockchain isn't required to be transparent to be a blockchain. Where are you getting these misconceptions from? Even gmaxwell corrected Toknormal on his sore misunderstanding of cryptography. The only thing that matters is mining, so exactly what are you talking about?
2) Again, you're not making sense. Miners determine which chain is real and which chain is invalid, no one else...so exactly what does being transparent have to do with any of it? Miners also process the transactions in case you didn't know. All of toknormal's points and yours has been invalid/wrong or contradictory(You/he doesn't seem to know how the blockchain actually works).
3) "decentralized processing power"...You're joking right? Everyone does see the transactions? Ok, exactly what does that have to do at all with my posts about a private blockchain? With a private/obscured blockchain you still see everything, but you can't make out what's going on because everything is obscured...
Here, I'll even take it up in the main bitcoin thread to show you just how wrong you are...this is basic crypto101.
