Why nobody's discussing this?

[piotr_n]

I'd welcome some paper though, that would allow some kind of coin mixing services, so one could launder his coins, without using a third party, but only a widely accepted protocol.
But I guess that will have to be done one day together with off chain transactions.
Obviously this system is not going to process 100tx/sec - if anyone believes that, he must be insane

[1715160022]

1715160022

[1715160022]

1715160022

[1715160022]

1715160022

[1715160022]

1715160022

[1715160022]

1715160022

[AgentME]

I'd welcome some paper though, that would allow some kind of coin mixing services, so one could launder his coins, without using a third party, but only a widely accepted protocol.
But I guess that will have to be done one day together with off chain transactions.
Obviously this system is not going to process 100tx/sec - if anyone believes that, he must be insane

This bitcoin2 paper didn't do much more for that topic than say "implement zerocoin", which currently has major performance issues. If its performance was much better, I'd love to see it implemented within Bitcoin itself. As it is, maybe some innovative altcoin will take it up, with its current performance.

[Wary]

Mining is the voting - everyone knows that.

That's why the miner ostracism was suggested. To give bitcoin users some leverage on miners, to let them affect the future of bitcoin. Currently the only leverage available for bitcoin users is rambling on forums  

[coinft]

The paper contains a few points worth of discussion, but mostly wrong assumptions (payment requests) and is probably impossible to implement. The dead coin handling is completely unnecessary, running against their own goal of keeping superfluous stuff out. Expensive miner keys could lead to even more miner centralization, or less mining and hence less network security.

And it looks like they dilute the value of bitcoins. From the moment their fork starts there are block rewards in both forks, and if bitcoin1 keeps running long enough and everyone moves over their coins to v2, v2 can in theory end up with about 30.000.000 BTC2.

The sane parts boil down to zerocoin, but still don't explain how this will solve KYC requirements at exchanges.

[Wary]

And it looks like they dilute the value of bitcoins. From the moment their fork starts there are block rewards in both forks, and if bitcoin1 keeps running long enough and everyone moves over their coins to v2, v2 can in theory end up with about 30.000.000 BTC2.

Is it technically possible to have a fork without increasing of total coin amount? Say, by disabling mining in v2 (or v1) and by allowing a user to switch their coin between branches. Then, after several such forks, everyone will have the brand of coins he personally prefers. There would be some mainstream coins, some niche coins, all flavors of coins, and none of them would lose value. Competion between branches (aka altcoins) will work not by them losing value, but by decreasing their amount. Say, if 20% of bitcoin users would like bitcon to become tax-coins and 70% to become anon-coins, so be it. 20% of coins will be tax-coins and 70% - anon-coins. But each of them would still cost 1M$ apiece  Wouldn't it be beautiful?

[AgentME]

Say, by disabling mining in v2 (or v1)

This kills the coin.

[Wary]

Say, by disabling mining in v2 (or v1)

This kills the coin.

Sorry, could you elaborate?

[Wary]

Say, by disabling mining in v2 (or v1)

This kills the coin.

OK, if it won't work, then by making reward proportional to total amount of this brand of coins. Then mirers will distribute proportionally too. Say, if 20% of coins are tax-coins and 70% are anon-coins, then reward for tax-coin mining would be 5 coins and for anon-coins would be 17.5 coins. So 20% of miners would mine for tax-coins and 70% for anon-coins. But the total amount of coins and their value won't be affected by such a branch.

I'm not an expert, and I'm not claiming it is the way. I'm just asking: is there a way?

[dree12]

Say, by disabling mining in v2 (or v1)

This kills the coin.

OK, if it won't work, then by making reward proportional to total amount of this brand of coins. Then mirers will distribute proportionally too. Say, if 20% of coins are tax-coins and 70% are anon-coins, then reward for tax-coin mining would be 5 coins and for anon-coins would be 17.5 coins. So 20% of miners would mine for tax-coins and 70% for anon-coins. But the total amount of coins and their value won't be affected by such a branch.

I'm not an expert, and I'm not claiming it is the way. I'm just asking: is there a way?

Why don't you just use Bitcoin? You can already make it almost anonymous.

[Wary]

Why don't you just use Bitcoin? You can already make it almost anonymous.

Yes, currently anonimity doesn't matter much. Bitcoin is too small for regulators to really care. But with the bitcoin growth it will change. And then "almost anonymous" will be like a bullet that almost missed  

And the anonimity is not the only point of disagreement. Different people want bitcoin to be different things and want it to evolve to different directions. They will never agree and splits are inevitable, early or late. That's why it is so important to find a way to a "peaceful divorce", to a fork that won't harm bitcoin's value.

By the way, I'm still interested in getting an answer to my question.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=262564.msg2810869#msg2810869

[dree12]

Why don't you just use Bitcoin? You can already make it almost anonymous.

Yes, currently anonimity doesn't matter much. Bitcoin is too small for regulators to really care. But with the bitcoin growth it will change. And then "almost anonymous" will be like a bullet that almost missed  

And the anonimity is not the only point of disagreement. Different people want bitcoin to be different things and want it to evolve to different directions. They will never agree and splits are inevitable, early or late. That's why it is so important to find a way to a "peaceful divorce", to a fork that won't harm bitcoin's value.

By the way, I'm still interested in getting an answer to my question.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=262564.msg2810869#msg2810869

Bitcoin is a digital currency, a protocol, and a software that enables

    Instant peer-to-peer transactions
    Worldwide payments
    Almost no processing fees
    And much more

From bitcoin.org. No mention of "tax haven" there.

[justusranvier]

tldr version:

Small block sizes so that only the friends of the miners get to have their transactions included in the blockchain. Everybody else has to go through regulatable gatekeeers.

Demurrage, a.k.a, your coins get stolen from you if you don't use it in a way the designers of Bitcoin 2 like

A cartel decides who can mine and who can't mine.

"We know that nobody sane will want to stay in this system once they figure out how it works, so we're going to force you to destroy your Bitcoin 1 coins first so there's no going back."

[Wary]

Bitcoin is a digital currency, a protocol, and a software that enables

    Instant peer-to-peer transactions
    Worldwide payments
    Almost no processing fees
    And much more


From bitcoin.org. No mention of "tax haven" there.

But there is. It's included in "much more"  

And if you want something more representative than opinion of one person that wrote the text you've quoted, look at the one I've already quoted to you. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=256428.0
Out of 54 person only nine want bitcoin to be tax-friendly, while 39 want it be totally anonymous. Sure, you can argue that they reasons for anonimity are not tax-related. But the results will be the same: if people can not pay taxes, they will not pay them. The history of intellectual property shows it clearly.

[exapted]

We don't know if something like ZeroCoin is feasible. We should find out.

I think there are two camps:
1) Pro anonymity - Deploy something like ZeroCoin. The US government will monitor people as much as possible using their vast resources. Sometimes they will be successful. At least we'll have better anonymity.
2) Pro "transparency" - Don't deploy anything like ZeroCoin. The persecuted will have to make do with some parallel anonymity system, while the government can still see every nearly anonymous thing people do. The government will use its resources to hide its activities as much as possible.

I think "transparency" is a misguided pipe-dream. The current situation favors the government, and so we should try to implement something like ZeroCoin to give the persecuted more power. Ostracize the governments, not the persecuted.

[piotr_n]

Mining is the voting - everyone knows that.

That's why the miner ostracism was suggested. To give bitcoin users some leverage on miners, to let them affect the future of bitcoin. Currently the only leverage available for bitcoin users is rambling on forums  

Not really. Currently the only leverage available for bitcoin users is buying a mining hardware - which has been all along the key design idea behind bitcoin's security, and thus it's value.

[AgentME]

We don't know if something like ZeroCoin is feasible. We should find out.

I think there are two camps:
1) Pro anonymity - Deploy something like ZeroCoin. The US government will monitor people as much as possible using their vast resources. Sometimes they will be successful. At least we'll have better anonymity.
2) Pro "transparency" - Don't deploy anything like ZeroCoin. The persecuted will have to make do with some parallel anonymity system, while the government can still see every nearly anonymous thing people do. The government will use its resources to hide its activities as much as possible.

I think "transparency" is a misguided pipe-dream. The current situation favors the government, and so we should try to implement something like ZeroCoin to give the persecuted more power. Ostracize the governments, not the persecuted.

It's not only the US government that can monitor the public blockchain. It bothers me that anyone I interact with financially can do some easy rough analysis to trace many of my transactions.