Cryptonote: More Bitcoin Than Bitcoin

[ajareselde]

I find it funny how lately a lot of anti-bitcoin threads emerge from stuff from years ago..
If there was any interest in developing and persuing any other bitcoin alike we wouldnt be here where we are, the market showed its interest, and it decided for bitcoin.
Having an annonymous blockchain is not something desirable if you want to bring virtual curency worldwide, it belongs in shady area of deep web, not on the front pages.

cheers

[1715146321]

1715146321

[1715146321]

1715146321

[1715146321]

1715146321

[1715146321]

1715146321

[AgentofCoin]

Anything truly important/revolutionary that Cryptonote does, can be rolled into Bitcoin in the future if necessary.
It won't be copy & paste protocol, but can be implemented.

Satoshi created the Bitcoin Whitepaper.
If CryptoNote is more toward what Satoshi intended as a coin, then Satoshi would have outlined/designed that, instead.
There is nothing in CryptoNote that Satoshi could not have envisioned and implemented at the time.

Satoshi's initial creation of Bitcoin was very buggy. Gavin actually cleaned up most of the Bitcoin code. For example, when Bitcoin first came out, there was a bug that allowed for unlimited creations of Bitcoins..

So, Satoshi is/was not perfect.

Besides, getting back on topic. I *like* Bitcoin's transparent blockchain. If it had anonymity from the start it'd be a different story, but anything other than transparent now and it'd seem dubious. While at that, I also *like* cryptonote for it's *dual functions*, I'm new at it but Monero seems like the leader currency there.

Ok, Post Count 4 Sockpuppet who likes/uses Monero. Thanks for your chime in over here at Bitcoin Discussion.

[R2D221]

Excuse my ignorance, but why is this thread not in the Altcoin section?

As I understand it, the discussion is intended to be about crytponote protocol, not specifically an altcoin.

But CryptoNote is not Bitcoin. It shouldn't be in the Bitcoin Discussion section.

[Lorenzo]

Excuse my ignorance, but why is this thread not in the Altcoin section?

If I had to guess, I'd say that it's due to this:

Altcoin Discussion
Discussion of cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin. Note that discussion of how these currencies *relate to* Bitcoin may fit in other categories.

I agree this thread would probably feel quite at home in the altcoin section too. Perhaps even more so than here. But I can also understand why it's here.

Anything truly important/revolutionary that Cryptonote does, can be rolled into Bitcoin in the future if necessary.
It won't be copy & paste protocol, but can be implemented.

Satoshi created the Bitcoin Whitepaper.
If CryptoNote is more toward what Satoshi intended as a coin, then Satoshi would have outlined/designed that, instead.
There is nothing in CryptoNote that Satoshi could not have envisioned and implemented at the time.

I'm not too sure about this. Satoshi was a genius, and he probably had the skills to implement something similar to CryptoNote, but he was only really active from 2009 to mid-2010. He was busy with Bitcoin at the time, and only began branching off into Namecoin just before he left. The cryptographic principles behind the CryptoNote protocol are very complex and not really something that anyone can just whip up in an afternoon.

[smooth]

Anything truly important/revolutionary that Cryptonote does, can be rolled into Bitcoin in the future if necessary.
It won't be copy & paste protocol, but can be implemented.

Satoshi created the Bitcoin Whitepaper.
If CryptoNote is more toward what Satoshi intended as a coin, then Satoshi would have outlined/designed that, instead.
There is nothing in CryptoNote that Satoshi could not have envisioned and implemented at the time.

If you look at the above satoshi quotes its quite clear that is not true. He knew about ring signatures and he even thought they were a good fit for a cryptocurrency, but he didn't know how to make them usable for a coin (i.e. prevent double spending). It was the application of partial linkability that was the real breakthrough in cryptonote.

As far as what section this should be in, I think its possible to have a discussion that belongs in one or the other, though they are different. If it is all about non-Bitcoin coins that use cryptonote then that belongs over there, but if it is about how the cryptonote concepts cold or should be applied to Bitcoin or are better or worse than Bitcoin then it is fine here, just like any other discussion of proposed improvements/changes to Bitcoin would be here.

[trackstarleah]

Anything truly important/revolutionary that Cryptonote does, can be rolled into Bitcoin in the future if necessary.
It won't be copy & paste protocol, but can be implemented.

Satoshi created the Bitcoin Whitepaper.
If CryptoNote is more toward what Satoshi intended as a coin, then Satoshi would have outlined/designed that, instead.
There is nothing in CryptoNote that Satoshi could not have envisioned and implemented at the time.

Satoshi's initial creation of Bitcoin was very buggy. Gavin actually cleaned up most of the Bitcoin code. For example, when Bitcoin first came out, there was a bug that allowed for unlimited creations of Bitcoins..

So, Satoshi is/was not perfect.

Besides, getting back on topic. I *like* Bitcoin's transparent blockchain. If it had anonymity from the start it'd be a different story, but anything other than transparent now and it'd seem dubious. While at that, I also *like* cryptonote for it's *dual functions*, I'm new at it but Monero seems like the leader currency there.

Ok, Post Count 4 Sockpuppet who likes/uses Monero. Thanks for your chime in over here at Bitcoin Discussion.

I said I liked cryptonote even though I just got introduced to it. Doesn't make me a sockpuppet, Lol? You obviously are new to the cryptoscene, come back when you actually know what Satoshi's original code for Bitcoin looked like. Hint: It was messy. I have no problem saying that Satoshi may have been the greatest mind(s) of the 20th/21st century, but he/they is/are human, not gods, and you can't expect Satoshi to be perfect(Which he was not).

I just love when people babble about things they're clueless on...

[tacotime]

Garbage.  That's the whole strength of Bitcoin, is it's transparent, trustful, trace any transaction to the Genesis Block Blockchain Ledger.

Having an anonymous blockchain seems shady, seedy, and made for illicit activity.

Thank God this thing is pretty much dead on arrival anyway.  Soon to be forgotten in the annals of Crypto history.

RIP Cryptonote.

Getting ring signatures in would be a soft fork, and very difficult in the current political climate of Bitcoin. Andytoshi and gmaxwell are proposing it as a sidechain, because almost certainly it would be extremely difficult to do on the main chain. There are many other differences too, e.g. the signature algorithm and inflation which would never be accepted into Bitcoin main chain.

Of course, sidechains themselves are considered highly experimental and I'm a little dubious of them being able to work (but I guess we will see). There's also nothing to stop bilateral two way pegs, that is, transfer of XMR to the Bitcoin blockchain as a tokenized coloured coin and the transfer of Bitcoin to the XMR blockchain as a tokenized coloured coin when sidechains come out. Then blockchains simply become decentralized trading apparatuses with different inherent features.

[AgentofCoin]

Anything truly important/revolutionary that Cryptonote does, can be rolled into Bitcoin in the future if necessary.
It won't be copy & paste protocol, but can be implemented.

Satoshi created the Bitcoin Whitepaper.
If CryptoNote is more toward what Satoshi intended as a coin, then Satoshi would have outlined/designed that, instead.
There is nothing in CryptoNote that Satoshi could not have envisioned and implemented at the time.

Satoshi's initial creation of Bitcoin was very buggy. Gavin actually cleaned up most of the Bitcoin code. For example, when Bitcoin first came out, there was a bug that allowed for unlimited creations of Bitcoins..

So, Satoshi is/was not perfect.

Besides, getting back on topic. I *like* Bitcoin's transparent blockchain. If it had anonymity from the start it'd be a different story, but anything other than transparent now and it'd seem dubious. While at that, I also *like* cryptonote for it's *dual functions*, I'm new at it but Monero seems like the leader currency there.

Ok, Post Count 4 Sockpuppet who likes/uses Monero. Thanks for your chime in over here at Bitcoin Discussion.

I said I liked cryptonote even though I just got introduced to it. Doesn't make me a sockpuppet, Lol? You obviously are new to the cryptoscene, come back when you actually know what Satoshi's original code for Bitcoin looked like. Hint: It was messy.

Interesting you know so much about it. Why don't you tell me with your non-sockpuppet account?

[trackstarleah]

Anything truly important/revolutionary that Cryptonote does, can be rolled into Bitcoin in the future if necessary.
It won't be copy & paste protocol, but can be implemented.

Satoshi created the Bitcoin Whitepaper.
If CryptoNote is more toward what Satoshi intended as a coin, then Satoshi would have outlined/designed that, instead.
There is nothing in CryptoNote that Satoshi could not have envisioned and implemented at the time.

Satoshi's initial creation of Bitcoin was very buggy. Gavin actually cleaned up most of the Bitcoin code. For example, when Bitcoin first came out, there was a bug that allowed for unlimited creations of Bitcoins..

So, Satoshi is/was not perfect.

Besides, getting back on topic. I *like* Bitcoin's transparent blockchain. If it had anonymity from the start it'd be a different story, but anything other than transparent now and it'd seem dubious. While at that, I also *like* cryptonote for it's *dual functions*, I'm new at it but Monero seems like the leader currency there.

Ok, Post Count 4 Sockpuppet who likes/uses Monero. Thanks for your chime in over here at Bitcoin Discussion.

I said I liked cryptonote even though I just got introduced to it. Doesn't make me a sockpuppet, Lol? You obviously are new to the cryptoscene, come back when you actually know what Satoshi's original code for Bitcoin looked like. Hint: It was messy.

Interesting you know so much about it. Why don't you tell me with your non-sockpuppet account?

Who said I have a *non-sockpuppet* account? Could it not be that I simply dislike using forums for communication and much prefer IRC if to communicate at all? Well it is latter. I don't frequently come on the forums, and just came back into the *cryptoscene*.

[smooth]

Garbage.  That's the whole strength of Bitcoin, is it's transparent, trustful, trace any transaction to the Genesis Block Blockchain Ledger.

Having an anonymous blockchain seems shady, seedy, and made for illicit activity.

Thank God this thing is pretty much dead on arrival anyway.  Soon to be forgotten in the annals of Crypto history.

RIP Cryptonote.

Getting ring signatures in would be a soft fork, and very difficult in the current political climate of Bitcoin. Andytoshi and gmaxwell are proposing it as a sidechain, because almost certainly it would be extremely difficult to do on the main chain. There are many other differences too, e.g. the signature algorithm and inflation which would never be accepted into Bitcoin main chain.

I'm not sure you can do ring sigs with a soft fork. A Bitcoin input refers to a source output uniquely. The corresponding output and input scripts are combined and then executed. Upon success the original output is marked as spent. I don't see how you can express a single spend of (one from an ambiguous set of) multiple outputs in Bitcoin without structural changes.

[tacotime]

I'm not sure you can do ring sigs with a soft fork. A Bitcoin input refers to a source output uniquely. The corresponding output and input scripts are combined and then executed. Upon success the original output is marked as spent. I don't see how you can express a single spend of (one from an ambiguous set of) multiple outputs in Bitcoin without structural changes.

You'd have to add a new OP_CODE for input verification and separate database bucket for outputs which can be spent as part of a ring signature. In that database outputs would never be considered provable spent. The soft fork rule would be to use the new input OP_CODE to verify a spend from any number of transaction outputs from a list of previous outpoints with ring signature verification.

So... pretty much impossible to get into Bitcoin now I would guess.

[smooth]

I'm not sure you can do ring sigs with a soft fork. A Bitcoin input refers to a source output uniquely. The corresponding output and input scripts are combined and then executed. Upon success the original output is marked as spent. I don't see how you can express a single spend of (one from an ambiguous set of) multiple outputs in Bitcoin without structural changes.

You'd have to add a new OP_CODE for input verification and separate database bucket for outputs which can be spent as part of a ring signature. In that database outputs would never be considered provable spent. The soft fork rule would be to use the new input OP_CODE to verify a spend from any number of transaction outputs from a list of previous outpoints with ring signature verification.

Okay I guess that could work. You would have to specify some output that existing clients would then consider spent, and never reuse it, but it could be arbitrary, like you just choose one in the order it originally appeared, with no real relevance to what is actually being spent.

So... pretty much impossible to get into Bitcoin now I would guess.

In practice, sure, that's true.

[ajareselde]

Excuse my ignorance, but why is this thread not in the Altcoin section?

As I understand it, the discussion is intended to be about crytponote protocol, not specifically an altcoin.

But CryptoNote is not Bitcoin. It shouldn't be in the Bitcoin Discussion section.

Its not about altcoins, more about the protocol it uses , i believe there was similar discussion regarding CIYAM's automated transaction (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=963031.0)
Since Crypto note obviously doesnt even have enough interest of the public, we should just let it die out, and leave this thread in the past, its a bogus one anyways.

cheers

[GTO911]

Since Crypto note obviously doesnt even have enough interest of the public, we should just let it die out, and leave this thread in the past, its a bogus one anyways.

Thanks for adding value to the thread, you dont seem legendary enough to me

I find it funny how lately a lot of anti-bitcoin threads emerge from stuff from years ago..

You can refrain from posting if you find this thread of that nature. Thanks

[DeathAndTaxes]

One day, bitcoin will probably attempt to incorporate cryptonote features into it. But it will be politically difficult.

That will not happen.  Those who wish to have anonymous transactions can use coinjoin (which is being developed into a number of wallets).   Anonymous transactions can be built on top of public transactions.   The consensus model of any crypto currency means that the scope of the changes will always be small.  Maybe a new opcode, maybe improved immutability, scalability enhancements, bug fixes, etc.   Ring signatures for transactions is an interest concept (the rest of cryptonote changes aren't very interesting) but Bitcoin would require such extensive changes that while it is technically possible it is not realistic.   

Compared to coinjoin, ring signatures have a number of advantages but they have one major drawback and that is size.  To provide a high level of anonymity requires multiple public keys and that bloats transaction sizes.  It remains to be seen how well Bitcoin with much lighter transactions can scale.  Additional size makes the problem even more difficult.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

Anything truly important/revolutionary that Cryptonote does, can be rolled into Bitcoin in the future if necessary.
It won't be copy & paste protocol, but can be implemented.

Satoshi created the Bitcoin Whitepaper.
If CryptoNote is more toward what Satoshi intended as a coin, then Satoshi would have outlined/designed that, instead.
There is nothing in CryptoNote that Satoshi could not have envisioned and implemented at the time.

What you say in the first part is technically true I suppose, but would require a fundamental change at a level of the protocol and the blockchain which is unrealistic to implement without destroying bitcoin and the faith in it.

What you say in the second part is pure foolishness IMHO.  I think the premise made by others that this is what satoshi intended in the first place is hyperbolic as well as your assertion that he would have thought of and rejected methods for a privacy centric blockchain.

FWIW I believe it is inevitable for a blockchain to emerge that offers the security of privacy and anonyminty while Bitcoin (with it's gigantic network effect) continues to lead the transparent blockchain.

[tacotime]

(the rest of cryptonote changes aren't very interesting)

Surely you find our temperamental and sometimes impossible C code interesting.

[Joshuar]

Cryptonote is actually one of the most interesting implementations along with Digital/Turing Complete contracts in my view. I picture Cryptonote as more "currencylike" and Turing Complete as more "application" like if that makes sense.

[neurotypical]

Crypto note seems really promising, I'm gonna keep an eye on it for a while, mabey it will create a good coin one day.

I've been following this project since the begining when the Bytecoin vs Monero controversy started. For now its clear Monero is the leading cryptonote coin. As far as I know a solid gui hasn't been released yet. Anyone knows when it will be done??

[nioc]

I learned of btc in Feb. 2013 as a US online poker player.  Withdrawing funds was difficult and Seals With Clubs, an online btc poker site, promised ease of transactions.  This was true.  After buying my first btc and learning more about it I bought many more than I need to play and all purchases except my first one was through Coinbase which I then transferred to Seals.  I was learning about btc and being unsure of wallets used Seals as my wallet in the beginning.  This was before the first "bubble" of 2013.  If I did that now I would be banned from Coinbase.  At first I sent my winnings to coinbase to cashout.  If coinbase wanted to be very strict they could analyse the blockchain and know exactly what I was doing.

What I first learned was that btc was anonymous.  This turned out not to be true.  As far as using coinjoin, there are weaknesses to it.  Improvements have been made and I expect more will be done but the analysis of the blockchain also is getting better.  A point that I don't think people appreciate is that as the analysis improves, what you thought was sufficient will no longer be so and those tools can be used retoactively  This means coinjoin and other ways of providing privacy have to be resistant to all future analysis tools for it to work as intended.

The real issue is privacy.  With a transparent blockchain and advanced analysis your financial history is an open book.  For anybody who thinks that financial privacy is not important, may I suggest you post your bank account statements and/or your credit card statements for all to see.

Again, with cryptonote you chose which transactions are pivate and which are public.