And it's not Monero's fault that those AB users don't know how to use it....that guys an idiot or a lier either way he's not worth my time.
Are you serious ?
This has nothing to do with 'faulty users'. By any satisfactory auditory definition, a transaction is successful when one address balance has been depleted and another credited. (I realise there are other ‘geeky’ definitions that involve transaction IDs but thats not what matters to users and it's not what would matter to any self respecting professional auditor who had to endorse the value of an address balance as a whole rather than a collection of 'discretely verified TX ID's').
In the abscence of a trusted 3rd party arbitor, you therefore need to see the movements at
both address balances. The sending and receiving.
Furthermore, the parties that need to see it are:
1. The
sending participating party (to verify they’re liability is cancelled)
2. The
receiving participating party (for obvious reasons)
3. Non-participating
keyholders (because they are exposed to the value of the blockchain based asset and have an interest in the public confidence of the blockchain integrity)
4. Non-participating,
non-keyholders (because they are expected to supply goods, services and other currencies in support of your blockchain asset's exchange rate).
You would not want to eat a piece of fruit out of a bowl of rotten apples, even if one of them looked ok. In Bitcoin (and Dash for that matter), everyone sees
the whole fruitbowl and everyone has access to
the same information without condition or recourse to a third party.
The reason Bitcoin’s blockchain is anonymous but transparent is because there IS no 3rd party arbitor to resolve disputes. Blockchain transparency therefore makes the asset resistant to confidence attacks through rumour, dispute, aspersion and theft. It also gives transacting parties huge protection by supporting the interests of veracity in anecdotal accounts of failed transfers, whether they be due to mis-addressed funds, lack of confirmations, deception, hacks or otherwise.
The problem with the Cryptonote approach (who’s original conception was intended to support trusted party backed ‘credit money’ anyway b.t.w.) is that the participating parties are *on their own* mate. Nobody can see a thing and they’re each dependent on the other’s co-operation for verifying the transaction. If Poloniex say my deposit ‘went through’ and no funds turn up and don’t supply me a TXID or viewkey I’m stuffed. Nor do I have recourse to “the rest of the world”. Take a look at the last 6 years of Bitcoin forums. They’re littered with discussions about addresses, transactions where something went, where it didn’t go.
Thats what gives a blockchain confidence and confidence is what supports its value. If all you have is one end of the transaction or a poxy TXID that you have to beg for, then you’ve a recipe for catastrophe. A while back I said that encryption was the "cancer of cryptocurrency". I didn’t mean that from the point of view of technical failure, I meant it from the perspective that ANY kind of obfuscation in an unbacked asset is corrosive to confidence and it’s only a matter of time before all it’s good for is a temporary payment rail thats valueless.
The reason these coins have no future isn’t because they don’t have good tech. It’s because ‘encrypting stuff’ is dirt cheap these days and doesn’t add any value. (Sticking a gold bar or a diamond in a safe might cost you a small premium, but the price of the safe, not the price of the gold).
On the contrary, when it comes to cryptocurrency, “encrypting stuff” positively detracts form its potential value because we’re talking about a bearer token which draws its worth from authenticity, not obscurity.
How much evidence of that do you need ? If not the above posts (which will be the tip of the Iceberg if people start using it in earnest), try this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg17896089#msg17896089
