[2015-07-21]CT - What Debate? NXT Votes Unanimously to Add Coin Mixing Anonymity

[dadon]

Just to be clear.

CryptoNote / Monero etc use Ring signatures. This means the txn 'signatures' are not linkable to any inputs. A nice feature.

Coinshuffle, the son of CoinJoin, mixes up the outputs, in a way that none of the users can decrypt (decentralised), so that the outputs are not linkable to an input. Also a nice feature.

If you had both, it would be better than one alone.

[rustynailer]

Just to be clear.

CryptoNote / Monero etc use Ring signatures. This means the txn 'signatures' are not linkable to any inputs. A nice feature.

Coinshuffle, the son of CoinJoin, mixes up the outputs, in a way that none of the users can decrypt (decentralised), so that the outputs are not linkable to an input. Also a nice feature.

If you had both, it would be better than one alone.

Coins like Shadow and Monero have an opaque blockchain so there is really no need for mixing.  And you are right, there are two choices we have in looking for the best privacy coin.  One is we can have a readable blockchain that uses mixers or two, we can have a unreadable blockchain using cryptography.

I know which one I am betting on that wins that battle. 

[Nxtblg]

y didnt they use another algo?

I saw on the Nxt forum that the devs considered the Cryptonote algo but rejected it - but I didn't see why.

[Sebastien256]

y didnt they use another algo?

I saw on the Nxt forum that the devs considered the Cryptonote algo but rejected it - but I didn't see why.

I think it was from the blockchain bloat of the cryptonote protocol, but not 100% sure.

[Marlo Stanfield]

I thought CoinShuffle was a superior version of CoinJoin.

I remember Dark Wallet had plans to implement CoinShuffle in the future but didn't get around to it as it was only theory at the time.

What other implementations of CoinShuffle are there?

[Nxtblg]

y didnt they use another algo?

I saw on the Nxt forum that the devs considered the Cryptonote algo but rejected it - but I didn't see why.

I think it was from the blockchain bloat of the cryptonote protocol, but not 100% sure.

That makes sense; thanks.

[box0214]

what about these ring signatures i keep hearing about? i dont understand it fully, but why didn't nxt go with what monero has for anonymity?

[Sebastien256]

what about these ring signatures i keep hearing about? i dont understand it fully, but why didn't nxt go with what monero has for anonymity?

see previous post to yours.

[toknormal]

One is we can have a readable blockchain that uses mixers or two, we can have a unreadable blockchain using cryptography.

I know which one I am betting on that wins that battle.  

Just be clear about which 'battle' you're betting on. 'Obscurity' does not make money valuable because the blockchain is not a bank account. The most valuable cryptocurrency will not be the most private and untraceable one.

It will be the most public and fungible one.

[dadon]

One is we can have a readable blockchain that uses mixers or two, we can have a unreadable blockchain using cryptography.

I know which one I am betting on that wins that battle.  

Just be clear about which 'battle' you're betting on. 'Obscurity' does not make money valuable because the blockchain is not a bank account. The most valuable cryptocurrency will not be the most private and untraceable one.

It will be the most public and fungible one.

Shadowcash has both Shadowcash is traceable like BTC  and can be changed in to Shadowtokens which are untraceable, both are redeemable for each other read here https://www.deepdotweb.com/2015/01/28/shadowcash-zero-knowledge-anonymity/ SDC has best of both worlds and it's anonymity is superior to all others

[rustynailer]

One is we can have a readable blockchain that uses mixers or two, we can have a unreadable blockchain using cryptography.

I know which one I am betting on that wins that battle.  

Just be clear about which 'battle' you're betting on. 'Obscurity' does not make money valuable because the blockchain is not a bank account. The most valuable cryptocurrency will not be the most private and untraceable one.

It will be the most public and fungible one.

Are you sure about that?

Anyway I was talking about the best coins for privacy, so if you think a public ledger is better then great because we have bitcoin.

[toknormal]

Are you sure about that?

2000 years of monetary history is sure.

Anyway I was talking about the best coins for privacy, so if you think a public ledger is better then great because we have bitcoin.

The best coin for "privacy" is Bitcoin. It has 2 ledgers - a public one and a private one. Without the public one, you don't have money. Without the private one you don't have the ability for that public consensus money to be privately controlled.

A bitcoin address is not a bank account because it doesn't derive its value from being backed by a trusted third party and nor does it derive its existence from representation of an individual's assets. Bitcoin addresses are the equivalent of gold nuggets lying around the hills.

The privacy issue arises from gleaning information about who is controlling what parts of the public ledger by knowledge acquired outside the blockchain. This is addressed by maximising the fungibility of the public ledger, not by burying it. That's where the job of a base monetary medium starts and ends.

[rustynailer]

Are you sure about that?

2000 years of monetary history is sure.

Anyway I was talking about the best coins for privacy, so if you think a public ledger is better then great because we have bitcoin.

The best coin for "privacy" is Bitcoin. It has 2 ledgers - a public one and a private one. Without the public one, you don't have money. Without the private one you don't have the ability for that public consensus money to be privately controlled.

A bitcoin address is not a bank account because it doesn't derive its value from being backed by a trusted third party and nor does it derive its existence from representation of an individual's assets. Bitcoin addresses are the equivalent of gold nuggets lying around the hills.

The privacy issue arises from gleaning information about who is controlling what parts of the public ledger by knowledge acquired outside the blockchain. This is addressed by maximising the fungibility of the public ledger, not by burying it. That's where the job of a base monetary medium starts and ends.

I am really not sure what you are trying to say here, but you are doing a good job of turning what is a simple concept of public or private transactions into something complicated.  

And there is a coin out there that has a "public and private ledger" but it certainly isn't bitcoin.  No offense to btc 

[toknormal]

I am really not sure what you are trying to say here, but you are doing a good job of turning what is a simple concept of public or private transactions into something complicated.

It's a question of what metaphor characterises cryptocurrency. Take your pick. It's either a metaphor for gold or a metaphor for fiat bank accounts. Bitcoin models itself on the former whereas cryptographically obscured blockchains model themselves on the latter. At a monetary level, they are very different in nature and unless that fact is consciously recognised we just stumble into a solution that is very private but has no value. A solution that is simply numbers in an account, as bookkeeping system is.

If you want to avoid unwittingly stumbling into developing the purse instead of the money, you need a fully public blockchain.

It's only "complicated" because these questions take us away from cosy little trainspotting factoids about traceability and back to the original premise of what constitutes money. But thats where this debate might have some genuine relevance.

[rustynailer]

I am really not sure what you are trying to say here, but you are doing a good job of turning what is a simple concept of public or private transactions into something complicated.

It's a question of what metaphor characterises cryptocurrency. Take your pick. It's either a metaphor for gold or a metaphor for fiat bank accounts. Bitcoin models itself on the former whereas cryptographically obscured blockchains model themselves on the latter. At a monetary level, they are very different in nature and unless that fact is consciously recognised we just stumble into a solution that is very private but has no value. A solution that is simply numbers in an account, as bookkeeping system is.

If you want to avoid unwittingly stumbling into developing the purse instead of the money, you need a fully public blockchain.

It's only "complicated" because these questions take us away from cosy little trainspotting factoids about traceability and back to the original premise of what constitutes money. But thats where this debate might have some genuine relevance.

Whilst I don't disagree with most of what your saying, but you are steering the conversation away from having the ability to make public or private transactions to "what constitutes money".

Anyway nice convo, but I don't want to derail this thread any further and we should take this up at another time and another thread.