Since CRY was so nice to accuse us of stealing ANON from others and saying how theirs is better, I figured I would write a quick analysis on theirs.
Firstly, I love their stick figures.
Anyway, their implementation is not possible.
Let's go through their list point by point (my commentary in bold):
CryptCast Synopsis
● Wallet A wants to send an anonymous transaction to Wallet B.
● Wallet A (sender) encrypts a message towards Wallet B (recipient) by
using private/public key concept, with Wallet B’s public key.
I'm not sure if CRY is talking about using the CRY public/private keys as in addresses and private keys, but I looked very heavily into that and it's not possible. The pubkey (or address) is actually a hash of the privatekey and cannot serve as a private key. It's possible to get Wallet B's public key, but only if it has sent a transaction before and thus it's in the blockchain. There's no transmission system to send that public key. ● The message is broadcasted through the nodes connected to Wallet A, and
will reach will reach Wallet B via the broadcasting system that already
exists in the Bitcoin protocol.
What I presume CRY is discussing here is probably the OP_RETURN function being integrated into BitCoin right now. It is not in the CRY codebase and is tough to integrate. More importantly, it only can store 40 bytes of data: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3830.0. That is not close to enough to do what is being proposed.● Wallet B is the only one that can decrypt the message with Wallet B’s
private key.
● Wallet B receives the request for secure transaction from Wallet A.
There is no mention of how this will be done and is not easily done.● The message contains the total number of transactions that are capable
of transmitting, and the total amount of coins.
I'm surprised there are no checksums, address verification, etc.● E.g., if Wallet A wishes to send 3 transactions and Wallet B accepts it,
it returns 3 new addresses (encrypted message with pubkey of wallet A.)
As I said before, this is not possible to send in 40 bytes. Not only that, but where is the pubkey of wallet A going to come from? ● The message is again broadcasted till it reaches wallet A.
Broadcast until it reaches? What if Wallet A is turned off? How does it stop wallet B from broadcasting? Is there an ack? Otherwise this is certainly going to flood the blockchain. Can someone say 1 TB drives for a coin wallet?● Wallet A decrypts the message, receives the new addresses and creates 3
transactions for each IN transaction it has, sending them to each new
address it got from the new wallet.
● Multi-transaction time-delay will be optional for maximum anonymity if
speed is not required.
● If Wallet B does not accept any type of secure transaction, it encrypts
again a message with decline response
● Wallet A then has the option of sending plain, non-secure transaction,
or to not send it at all.
I got tired of analyzing more but frankly this is impossible to do without completely restructuring the blockchain and requiring a very serious hard fork.
But isn't VRC just a mixer? Its still centralized and traceable.
Poll
