Cryptonote: More Bitcoin Than Bitcoin

[iCEBREAKER]

We need a review of this technology. Something brilliant and clever like this should not be ignored. Even satoshi made some comments on the essence of Cryptonote. Maybe he contributed in some way or another towards its development

Apparently it was in development since a few years and was intended to be a step ahead in the right direction, that is transaction privacy. Cryptonote is the tech which should have been bitcoin in the first place. If it had surfaced a year later after bitcoin, things could have been different

Um. What do you want to know? I'll talk about Monero since that's the CN chain I've worked on the most.

(1) It uses a different elliptic curve than Bitcoin for signing (EdDSA, which uses Schnorr signatures on a Twisted Edwards curve).
(2) It uses a different hashing algorithm than Bitcoin for PoW, which is AES heavy and currently performs similarly on GPUs and CPUs. One of the main downsides to this is that sidechains are currently impossible (validation takes too long), however as sidechains don't actually exist right now we've been ignoring this. If we want to add sidechain support in the future, the hashing algorithm can be change to something simple. In the meantime, the algorithm is relatively "egalitarian" in that no specialized hardware is required.
(3) One time use addresses ("stealth addressing") is mandatory for all transactions. This makes light clients very difficult to secure or create in general, but it dramatically enhances privacy because it's impossible to ever reuse an address.
(4) All transactions are denominated in base 10, and fractionated by mantissa.
(5) Ring signatures obfuscate spending of outputs by allowing you to do a 1-of-N input for a transaction where you spend funds from Bob OR Alice OR Michael OR Claire OR et cetera. Like one time use addresses, this is a passive privacy technology that doesn't require any active participation of anyone in the network (unlike DarkCoin, CoinJoin, and so on).
(6) A single pair of private keys is used for the recovery of all outputs owned by a wallet, but with a different type of data structure than BIP32 has (viewkey/secretkey).
(7) An implicit, silent multisig implementation centered around Schnorr signatures is being researched and developed (thanks andytoshi/gmaxwell).
( Research is ongoing into ways to break our privacy technology and improve it. See: https://lab.monero.cc/
(9) Monero is readily auditable from a regulatory perspective (you can easily prove your ownership of funds if you need to, for example to tax agencies).
(10) It has a much faster emissions (subsidy/reward) curve than Bitcoin. 80% is mined within 4 years. The emissions curve is also much smoother than for Bitcoin, with reward decreasing every block.
(11) Unlike Bitcoin, Monero will have long term perpetual inflation. Subsidy will become fixed in about 10 years time at a flat rate of less than 1%, to keep the chain from becoming fully deflationary and to better incentivize miners. This makes it more likely to be useful as a currency than Bitcoin, in my opinion.

For its commendable speaking of truths, I have quoted your post.   

[1715187790]

1715187790

[1715187790]

1715187790

[1715187790]

1715187790

[funkenstein]

Well, that's the beauty of cryptonote. It can provide both relative transparency and secure anonymity. It's not one thing, it's both.

Hmm that reminds me of another coin, I just can't remember the name.  

Edit:  I remembered!  It is "bitcoin". 

[Alty]

Not sure if it's already been mentioned in this thread, but there is actually a coin called ShadowCash (SDC) that uses cryptonote tech as a layer on top of Bitcoin codebase. Best of both worlds.... perhaps.

[onemorexmr]

Not sure if it's already been mentioned in this thread, but there is actually a coin called ShadowCash (SDC) that uses cryptonote tech as a layer on top of Bitcoin codebase. Best of both worlds.... perhaps.

...but its pos
...so absolutely uninteresting

[smooth]

Not sure if it's already been mentioned in this thread, but there is actually a coin called ShadowCash (SDC) that uses cryptonote tech as a layer on top of Bitcoin codebase. Best of both worlds.... perhaps.

Best of both worlds or worst of both worlds, or some of each. Hard to say.

Also as later poster added, PoS comes from neither Bitcoin nor cyptonote tech, so the above isn't even true. It is more like cryptonote tech on top of a Blackcoin code base or something. Less compelling when described that way IMO.

[Joshuar]

Not sure if it's already been mentioned in this thread, but there is actually a coin called ShadowCash (SDC) that uses cryptonote tech as a layer on top of Bitcoin codebase. Best of both worlds.... perhaps.

...but its pos
...so absolutely uninteresting

Besides PoS, it uses the bitcoin codebase. I'm sure it's common knowledge(or ough to be), that altcoins using the bitcoin codebase aren't going anywhere.

*cough* bitcoin clone *cough*
*cough* bitcoin can add on their features instantly if it's actually worthwhile*cough*

[funkenstein]

Besides PoS, it uses the bitcoin codebase. I'm sure it's common knowledge(or ough to be), that altcoins using the bitcoin codebase aren't going anywhere.

Yes, we all know that codebases which are more buggy and less well tested are generally more likely to "go somewhere". 

[Joshuar]

Besides PoS, it uses the bitcoin codebase. I'm sure it's common knowledge(or ough to be), that altcoins using the bitcoin codebase aren't going anywhere.

Yes, we all know that codebases which are more buggy and less well tested are generally more likely to "go somewhere". 

Actually much more likely to go somewhere. Clones of Bitcoin/Altcoins that use Bitcoin's codebase tend not to be worthwhile, for obvious reasons.

[funkenstein]

Besides PoS, it uses the bitcoin codebase. I'm sure it's common knowledge(or ough to be), that altcoins using the bitcoin codebase aren't going anywhere.

Yes, we all know that codebases which are more buggy and less well tested are generally more likely to "go somewhere". 

Actually much more likely to go somewhere. Clones of Bitcoin/Altcoins that use Bitcoin's codebase tend not to be worthwhile, for obvious reasons.

OK I'll bite.  Please enlighten us as to what the obvious reasons are that software projects or communication protocols which build on bitcoin tend towards the not worthwhile. 

[Joshuar]

Besides PoS, it uses the bitcoin codebase. I'm sure it's common knowledge(or ough to be), that altcoins using the bitcoin codebase aren't going anywhere.

Yes, we all know that codebases which are more buggy and less well tested are generally more likely to "go somewhere".  

Actually much more likely to go somewhere. Clones of Bitcoin/Altcoins that use Bitcoin's codebase tend not to be worthwhile, for obvious reasons.

OK I'll bite.  Please enlighten us as to what the obvious reasons are that software projects or communication protocols which build on bitcoin tend towards the not worthwhile.  

They are Bitcoin clones essentially. If they ever made a feature worthwhile(most haven't but you never know), Bitcoin would be able to incorporate it with relatively no problems. Think of it like a treebranch, and Bitcoin is the entire tree, and the altcoins based off Bitcoin are the branches and leaves. Why would anyone take the leaves when they have the whole tree? Those altcoins who use Bitcoin's codebase are basically trying to compete with Bitcoin while being an initial clone of Bitcoin.

Those that don't use Bitcoin's codebase are new territory. If someone/company finds the coin interesting, they can create new services based around it, and be the first in the field to do so(Which is more profitable since there is likely to be less competition at the beginning with new codebases, unlike bitcoin based coins). Those coins are entire trees themselves, not "leaves" on the tree like bitcoin based coins are.

[funkenstein]

OK I'll bite.  Please enlighten us as to what the obvious reasons are that software projects or communication protocols which build on bitcoin tend towards the not worthwhile.  

They are Bitcoin clones essentially. If they ever made a feature worthwhile (most haven't but you never know), Bitcoin would be able to incorporate it with relatively no problems. Think of it like a treebranch, and Bitcoin is the entire tree, and the altcoins based off Bitcoin are the branches and leaves. Why would anyone take the leaves when they have the whole tree? Those altcoins who use Bitcoin's codebase are basically trying to compete with Bitcoin while being an initial clone of Bitcoin.

Those that don't use Bitcoin's codebase are new territory. If someone/company finds the coin interesting, they can create new services based around it, and be the first in the field to do so(Which is more profitable since there is likely to be less competition at the beginning with new codebases, unlike bitcoin based coins). Those coins are entire trees themselves, not "leaves" on the tree like bitcoin based coins are.

In theory, bitcoin could incorporate any feature from any codebase.  It could move to cryptonote even, if a consensus majority agreed.  Which they never would, for obvious reasons  

Your arguments suggest that coins are always in direct competition with one another, which is not necessarily the case.  You also suggest that building services for little-used coins is more profitable than building services which have a large number of existing potential customers.  The only reason this would be the case is if you plan to design services of such low quality that they can't compete. 

   

[Joshuar]

OK I'll bite.  Please enlighten us as to what the obvious reasons are that software projects or communication protocols which build on bitcoin tend towards the not worthwhile.  

They are Bitcoin clones essentially. If they ever made a feature worthwhile (most haven't but you never know), Bitcoin would be able to incorporate it with relatively no problems. Think of it like a treebranch, and Bitcoin is the entire tree, and the altcoins based off Bitcoin are the branches and leaves. Why would anyone take the leaves when they have the whole tree? Those altcoins who use Bitcoin's codebase are basically trying to compete with Bitcoin while being an initial clone of Bitcoin.

Those that don't use Bitcoin's codebase are new territory. If someone/company finds the coin interesting, they can create new services based around it, and be the first in the field to do so(Which is more profitable since there is likely to be less competition at the beginning with new codebases, unlike bitcoin based coins). Those coins are entire trees themselves, not "leaves" on the tree like bitcoin based coins are.

In theory, bitcoin could incorporate any feature from any codebase.  It could move to cryptonote even, if a consensus majority agreed.  Which they never would, for obvious reasons  

Your arguments suggest that coins are always in direct competition with one another, which is not necessarily the case.  You also suggest that building services for little-used coins is more profitable than building services which have a large number of existing potential customers.  The only reason this would be the case is if you plan to design services of such low quality that they can't compete.  

  

"You also suggest that building services for little-used coins is more profitable than building services which have a large number of existing potential customers.  The only reason this would be the case is if you plan to design services of such low quality that they can't compete. ", that's not what I said. I said the competition will be less, since you'd be required to design your services based around a new codebase(That isn't bitcoin based, and that requires skill and time to make), which means the profit might be higher for those services if the coin surges in popularity, potentially higher than that of a bitcoin-based coin.

The main argument comes down to this: Would the public use a coin that's basically bitcoin+other features? Or a coin that's entirely different from bitcoin down to the protocol level+other features? The latter.

[cAPSLOCK]

In theory, bitcoin could incorporate any feature from any codebase.  It could move to cryptonote even, if a consensus majority agreed.  Which they never would, for obvious reasons  
  

Your most important two words are "in theory".

Bitcoin could possibly survive adding features from branches of it's own codebase, but even if a coin added ring signatures etc to the bitcoin codebase inheriting changes this fundamental and large would arguably destroy the trust in the protocol.

It's obvious you don't think cryptonotes features are worth having in crypto-finance, but there are many many of us who believe they are not only worthwhile, but essential.  It may not be Monero, or cryptonote, but some blockchain that offers solid simple fundamental privacy HAS to exist.

It will never be Bitcoin.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

In theory, bitcoin could incorporate any feature from any codebase.  It could move to cryptonote even, if a consensus majority agreed.  Which they never would, for obvious reasons  
  

Your most important two words are "in theory".

Bitcoin could possibly survive adding features from branches of it's own codebase, but even if a coin added ring signatures etc to the bitcoin codebase inheriting changes this fundamental and large would arguably destroy the trust in the protocol.

It's obvious you don't think cryptonotes features are worth having in crypto-finance, but there are many many of us who believe they are not only worthwhile, but essential.  It may not be Monero, or cryptonote, but some blockchain that offers solid simple fundamental privacy HAS to exist.

It will never be Bitcoin.

This. It has been said before, Blockchain cant adopt ring signature technology, it would need a major rewritting of the code, fork.. tons of stuff that are not good for the stability of the network.

Bitcoin doesn't need to be what it isn't, that's why both Bitcoin and Monero have legitimate value.

[cAPSLOCK]

In theory, bitcoin could incorporate any feature from any codebase.  It could move to cryptonote even, if a consensus majority agreed.  Which they never would, for obvious reasons  
  

Your most important two words are "in theory".

Bitcoin could possibly survive adding features from branches of it's own codebase, but even if a coin added ring signatures etc to the bitcoin codebase inheriting changes this fundamental and large would arguably destroy the trust in the protocol.

It's obvious you don't think cryptonotes features are worth having in crypto-finance, but there are many many of us who believe they are not only worthwhile, but essential.  It may not be Monero, or cryptonote, but some blockchain that offers solid simple fundamental privacy HAS to exist.

It will never be Bitcoin.

This. It has been said before, Blockchain cant adopt ring signature technology, it would need a major rewritting of the code, fork.. tons of stuff that are not good for the stability of the network.

Bitcoin doesn't need to be what it isn't, that's why both Bitcoin and Monero have legitimate value.

This is also a very important point.  It is arguably better for each blockchain for them both to exist.

[thejaytiesto]

In theory, bitcoin could incorporate any feature from any codebase.  It could move to cryptonote even, if a consensus majority agreed.  Which they never would, for obvious reasons  
  

Your most important two words are "in theory".

Bitcoin could possibly survive adding features from branches of it's own codebase, but even if a coin added ring signatures etc to the bitcoin codebase inheriting changes this fundamental and large would arguably destroy the trust in the protocol.

It's obvious you don't think cryptonotes features are worth having in crypto-finance, but there are many many of us who believe they are not only worthwhile, but essential.  It may not be Monero, or cryptonote, but some blockchain that offers solid simple fundamental privacy HAS to exist.

It will never be Bitcoin.

This. It has been said before, Blockchain cant adopt ring signature technology, it would need a major rewritting of the code, fork.. tons of stuff that are not good for the stability of the network.

Bitcoin doesn't need to be what it isn't, that's why both Bitcoin and Monero have legitimate value.

This is also a very important point.  It is arguably better for each blockchain for them both to exist.

Andreas Antonopolous himself has been saying repeatedly that Bitcoin cannot guarantee total anonimity and that other altcoins should be used if one was concerned about remaining 100% anonymous, so he does not see a problem with it.

[funkenstein]

In theory, bitcoin could incorporate any feature from any codebase.  It could move to cryptonote even, if a consensus majority agreed.  Which they never would, for obvious reasons  
  

Your most important two words are "in theory".

Bitcoin could possibly survive adding features from branches of it's own codebase, but even if a coin added ring signatures etc to the bitcoin codebase inheriting changes this fundamental and large would arguably destroy the trust in the protocol.

It's obvious you don't think cryptonotes features are worth having in crypto-finance, but there are many many of us who believe they are not only worthwhile, but essential.  It may not be Monero, or cryptonote, but some blockchain that offers solid simple fundamental privacy HAS to exist.

It will never be Bitcoin.

If we didn't think cryptonote's features had some value, we wouldn't be here.  It is worth pointing out that simple fundamental privacy is not something to be offered but something to be claimed.  Lets look at privacy with a specific example to make things more clear.  Using tor, I send some litecoin to a throwaway poloniex account and convert it to bitcoin and send it via coinjoin to a stealth darknet market address so I can buy antibiotics.  How is my privacy? 

Good enough for a hundred quid worth of antibiotics I'd wager. 

On the other end, the dealer redeems with the stealth address and uses tor to move the coin, moving to another alt and through a dice game before cashing out using an e-coin card. 

It is possible to have pretty good privacy with bitcoin.  It just isn't default out of the box behavior.  Could we do better with ring signatures and cryptonote avoiding all the counterparty risk in my example?  Maybe we could.  However we aren't there yet.  First you guys will have to build a working full node wallet that can run with 512M ram, and a javascript library or equivalent for easy paper wallet creation.  That's to enter the race mind you, not to win it.         




     

[EternalWingsofGod]

I don't know enough about it to be able to meaningfully contribute to the discussion, but there is quite a bit of discussion about it in the Alt Coin Discussion forum, especially in some of the Monero threads.

At a similar level of knowledge but I'll keep a watch on it myself looking at how much discussion it has generated
It sounds interesting in concept though reading the wiki article on it
Some contorversies on that page but it's new relatively so I'm sure the dust will settle if the crytography is what is promised.

[Truecurrency]

What does cryptonote do? Can someone give a beginners explanation pls.

[MoneroMooo]

What does cryptonote do? Can someone give a beginners explanation pls.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.0

Look for "What is CryptoNote?" in the first post. This is a pretty good overview of what it is and what it does.