Bitcoin Forum
May 21, 2019, 02:11:21 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Privacycoin/Anoncoin  (Read 1520 times)
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


Wat


View Profile WWW
September 29, 2012, 08:22:00 AM
 #1

Is there any chance people would support a version of bitcoin that's goal is to keep its users as anonymous as possible ?

Some of the bitcoin developers are not exactly keen on allowing features into bitcoin that promote the maximum possible privacy.

Things like this - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=241.0

this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54266.0

and this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=24784.0

Maybe it would be best on a separate block chain that could include privacy increasing features at a protocol level ?

People should be free to use a facebook coin if they choose  BUT they should also be free to use a bitcoin that makes it dramatically harder to track and trace the flow of coins. I just dont know if you can have the two extremes of this in the same coin. Im sure someone would love to have a coin where you need to upload your AMl documents before you can use it but that shouldnt be forced onto people who want to opt out.


1558447881
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558447881

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558447881
Reply with quote  #2

1558447881
Report to moderator
1558447881
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558447881

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558447881
Reply with quote  #2

1558447881
Report to moderator
NEW GAME FORMAT
JACKPOT UP TO $8000+
Guess The Symbols Of a Real Ethereum Hash
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1558447881
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558447881

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558447881
Reply with quote  #2

1558447881
Report to moderator
Stephen Gornick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1001


View Profile
September 29, 2012, 09:03:16 AM
 #2

Is there any chance people would support a version of bitcoin that's goal is to keep its users as anonymous as possible ?

Open Transactions?

Unichange.me

            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █


Etlase2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 29, 2012, 11:16:25 AM
 #3

Well you're posting about bitcoin but it's in the alt currency section so I'll remark about how account ledgers in lieu of transaction ledgers, such as the idea employed by the Decrits proposal, may help with the unlinkability of transactions. At least as far as the sense of "coin taint" goes.

Because of this, I think it would be possible to create signature-blinded tokens that would remove all linkability (with the caveats that they will have to be in a fixed amount of money and you must wait some time for deniability), supported by the protocol. But I am totally not sure on this because blind signatures are really hard to understand. Tongue

Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


Wat


View Profile WWW
September 29, 2012, 11:23:42 AM
 #4

Well you're posting about bitcoin but it's in the alt currency section so I'll remark about how account ledgers in lieu of transaction ledgers, such as the idea employed by the Decrits proposal, may help with the unlinkability of transactions. At least as far as the sense of "coin taint" goes.

Because of this, I think it would be possible to create signature-blinded tokens that would remove all linkability (with the caveats that they will have to be in a fixed amount of money and you must wait some time for deniability), supported by the protocol. But I am totally not sure on this because blind signatures are really hard to understand. Tongue

Someone ran a site not long ago called blindbitcoins.

I think its wise to have a cryptocurrency that's main  goal is privacy.

Etlase2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 29, 2012, 11:30:59 AM
 #5

Actually, I thought about it a bit more, and specifically under the Decrits system this would be possible because of the shareholder system.

Users blind their transactions and shareholders add them to a blind sig queue. Once there are enough in the queue (decided by the protocol, say 50 or so txes), a shareholder will sign all of them and have the coins deposited to his shareholder stake. Then the txes can be unblinded by their owners and sent along the network whenever they feel the need. You have the slight chance of getting boned if the shareholder removes his share, but he is only allowed to do this once per year, otherwise he has to pay a very big penalty. This does mean that the total of the blinded txes would have to be no more than a percentage of the shareholder's stake though, so if you want to unlink a lot of money it is going to take a lot of time. There may perhaps be a better way though. (perhaps being willing to put a bigger stake on the line to provide this service? for a fee, obv)

Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


Wat


View Profile WWW
September 29, 2012, 11:39:08 AM
 #6

Actually, I thought about it a bit more, and specifically under the Decrits system this would be possible because of the shareholder system.

Users blind their transactions and shareholders add them to a blind sig queue. Once there are enough in the queue (decided by the protocol, say 50 or so txes), a shareholder will sign all of them and have the coins deposited to his shareholder stake. Then the txes can be unblinded by their owners and sent along the network whenever they feel the need. You have the slight chance of getting boned if the shareholder removes his share, but he is only allowed to do this once per year, otherwise he has to pay a very big penalty. This does mean that the total of the blinded txes would have to be no more than a percentage of the shareholder's stake though, so if you want to unlink a lot of money it is going to take a lot of time. There may perhaps be a better way though. (perhaps being willing to put a bigger stake on the line to provide this service? for a fee, obv)

Having a built in coin mixer or tumbler is pretty crucial I suspect.

betatest512
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 100


View Profile
September 29, 2012, 12:44:25 PM
 #7

Actually, I thought about it a bit more, and specifically under the Decrits system this would be possible because of the shareholder system.

Users blind their transactions and shareholders add them to a blind sig queue. Once there are enough in the queue (decided by the protocol, say 50 or so txes), a shareholder will sign all of them and have the coins deposited to his shareholder stake. Then the txes can be unblinded by their owners and sent along the network whenever they feel the need. You have the slight chance of getting boned if the shareholder removes his share, but he is only allowed to do this once per year, otherwise he has to pay a very big penalty. This does mean that the total of the blinded txes would have to be no more than a percentage of the shareholder's stake though, so if you want to unlink a lot of money it is going to take a lot of time. There may perhaps be a better way though. (perhaps being willing to put a bigger stake on the line to provide this service? for a fee, obv)

Having a built in coin mixer or tumbler is pretty crucial I suspect.

i would also like a coin like that
Etlase2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 29, 2012, 04:31:40 PM
 #8

Having a built in coin mixer or tumbler is pretty crucial I suspect.

And I think it could be made completely trustless, all you have to do is prevent the standard stake withdrawal for 30 days or however long you want to keep the blinded transactions available for use and make sure that the shareholder has the money covered until then. This does come with a big caveat though--"money laundering" as a defined part of the protocol. That may raise the ire of the powers that be. An interesting topic to discuss though.

ElectricMucus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1001


God of the code.


View Profile WWW
September 29, 2012, 04:49:16 PM
 #9

Better privacy should be some noteworthy feature of a next-gen cryptocurrency.

I'd rather make it optional than mandatory, because for certain transactions users might want transparency not privacy. (You are trying establish trust among your peers)

The hard part will be to make it so that both features do not interfere with each other.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086
Merit: 1007

Newbie


View Profile
September 30, 2012, 08:53:56 PM
 #10

I'd rather make it optional than mandatory, because for certain transactions users might want transparency not privacy. (You are trying establish trust among your peers)

Brilliant idea! I should think how to embed it into Qubic (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112676.0)!
ElectricMucus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1001


God of the code.


View Profile WWW
September 30, 2012, 10:15:01 PM
Last edit: September 30, 2012, 10:26:27 PM by ElectricMucus
 #11

Well if you really do it...

I think we had enough vaporware-cryptocurrencies, and bitcoin forks for that matter.
Success will not come because *some* feature but only if it is a consistent improvment. To be honest I haven't even seen a potential candidate which could fall into that category.

It should be to bitcoin as bitcoin is to hashcash if you know what I mean. Another *coin is not it and it relying on common hashing functions is not it. One feature I think is mandatory imo is provable security along with hardware independent efficiency.

It should run just as good on a CPU as on an FPGA or a GPU and should use a customized function for each device (call it meta-hashing function) difficulty should be a vector corespondent to what people are using on average. I don't think the proof of work paradigm should be left behind though. Being able to function in a trustless environment is mandatory for any next-gen cryptocurrency imo.
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


Wat


View Profile WWW
October 01, 2012, 12:29:48 PM
 #12

Having a built in coin mixer or tumbler is pretty crucial I suspect.

And I think it could be made completely trustless, all you have to do is prevent the standard stake withdrawal for 30 days or however long you want to keep the blinded transactions available for use and make sure that the shareholder has the money covered until then. This does come with a big caveat though--"money laundering" as a defined part of the protocol. That may raise the ire of the powers that be. An interesting topic to discuss though.

Money laundering is a feature not  a bug  Tongue


AnonyMint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500


View Profile
May 12, 2013, 10:27:42 AM
 #13

Add this link to ideas on how to do anonymity:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=160612.msg2118458#msg2118458

I'd rather make it optional than mandatory, because for certain transactions users might want transparency not privacy. (You are trying establish trust among your peers)

Disagree, because it means you are "money launderer" if you use it. If you want transparency, use a currency that requires it.

Actually, I thought about it a bit more, and specifically under the Decrits system this would be possible because of the shareholder system.

Users blind their transactions and shareholders add them to a blind sig queue. Once there are enough in the queue (decided by the protocol, say 50 or so txes), a shareholder will sign all of them and have the coins deposited to his shareholder stake. Then the txes can be unblinded by their owners and sent along the network whenever they feel the need. You have the slight chance of getting boned if the shareholder removes his share, but he is only allowed to do this once per year, otherwise he has to pay a very big penalty. This does mean that the total of the blinded txes would have to be no more than a percentage of the shareholder's stake though, so if you want to unlink a lot of money it is going to take a lot of time. There may perhaps be a better way though. (perhaps being willing to put a bigger stake on the line to provide this service? for a fee, obv)

Having a built in coin mixer or tumbler is pretty crucial I suspect.

I have no idea what any of this means. Sounds like a lot of hand waving without sufficient technical proof.

unheresy.com - Prodigiously Elucidating the Profoundly ObtuseTHIS FORUM ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
anderl
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 500



View Profile
May 12, 2013, 10:39:12 AM
 #14

Zerocoin.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Zerocoin
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!