Privacycoin/Anoncoin

[Bitcoin Oz]

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.

[1715229726]

1715229726

[1715229726]

1715229726

[1715229726]

1715229726

[Stephen Gornick]

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?

[Etlase2]

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.

[Bitcoin Oz]

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.

Someone ran a site not long ago called blindbitcoins.

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

[Etlase2]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 

[AnonyMint]

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.

[anderl]

Zerocoin.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Zerocoin