Dash needs to implement Shadowcash technology and truly be anonymous.

[xdashguy]

I saw the proposal on dashwhale. The disconnect between users of Dash on this forum and masternode operators really shows there is a centralization of masternodes.

Dash users: 92% of them of them believe privacy is critical

Dash masternode votes: 15% think privacy is important

This type of extreme disconnect should not occur. Certainly, in both polls there is some kind of selection-bias. However, the difference is too much. In fact, given the history of Dash (or should I say darkcoin) you would expect selection-bias to mean even MORE masternodes favor privacy. As, the earliest adopters and most extreme supporters (those running masternodes) would have come from this era of privacy centricism, so the initial investors of Dash were privacy advocates.

It seems odd that the casual user on Dash has an extreme preference for privacy. However, those that run the masternodes do not favor privacy when, in fact, many of those very people got in to Dash because of the privacy aspect of the coin.

My theory: Dash has a controversial history of being instamined. This poll lends support to the idea that the proceeds of the instamine are still being held by Evan. Evan likely holds many masternodes due to an instamine AND he has changed his stance on privacy. This would explain the poll results.The results reflect the extreme centralization of masternodes by one person (Evan) who has changed his opinion on privacy.

The economic risk of such an extreme number of coins being held by one person and the network risk is quite large. In fact, it undermines the entire masternodes system both in terms of governance and in terms of its ability to not be compromised by state actors.

 

[TroyDASH]

I saw the proposal on dashwhale. The disconnect between users of Dash on this forum and masternode operators really shows there is a centralization of masternodes.

Dash users: 92% of them of them believe privacy is critical

Dash masternode votes: 15% think privacy is important

This type of extreme disconnect should not occur. Certainly, in both polls there is some kind of selection-bias. However, the difference is too much. In fact, given the history of Dash (or should I say darkcoin) you would expect selection-bias to mean even MORE masternodes favor privacy. As, the earliest adopters and most extreme supporters (those running masternodes) would have come from this era of privacy centricism, so the initial investors of Dash were privacy advocates.

It seems odd that the casual user on Dash has an extreme preference for privacy. However, those that run the masternodes do not favor privacy when, in fact, many of those very people got in to Dash because of the privacy aspect of the coin.

My theory: Dash has a controversial history of being instamined. This poll lends support to the idea that the proceeds of the instamine are still being held by Evan. Evan likely holds many masternodes due to an instamine AND he has changed his stance on privacy. This would explain the poll results.The results reflect the extreme centralization of masternodes by one person (Evan) who has changed his opinion on privacy.

The economic risk of such an extreme number of coins being held by one person and the network risk is quite large. In fact, it undermines the entire masternodes system both in terms of governance and in terms of its ability to not be compromised by state actors.

The other FORUM poll that was posted for the budget proposal closely resembles the outcome of the masternode vote. Believing privacy is a critical/important feature of Dash is not even remotely the same thing as thinking we should change the project direction and implement a privacy first chain protocol. Equating these two things is misleading. Stop.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

The other FORUM poll that was posted for the budget proposal closely resembles the outcome of the masternode vote. Believing privacy is a critical/important feature of Dash is not even remotely the same thing as thinking we should change the project direction and implement a privacy first chain protocol. Equating these two things is misleading. Stop.

The reason for that is quite clear; it's in the Pre-Proposal forum where MNOs go...

 

[qwizzie]

The poll in this thread (which has really a low participation of just 39 members) totally disconnects from the first post that OP created and is in fact misleading as Dash has always been a privacy-orientated cryptocurrency,
if you ask voters then the question "Do you think Dash fungibility / anonymity is a critical feature", you end up with a predictable outcome, where of course the majority thinks it is critical.

Most members most likely did not vote at all, due to the misleading nature of this poll (i know i did not).
In short : the results in the end were unclear as the poll itself was unclear and also had low participation, so it can therefore not be used as polling mechanisme.

GrandMasterDash then created both an informal poll in the pre-budget discussion section and later a polling proposal on the masternode network that better defined and described the yes and no vote so people would understand more clearly
what their votes ment.

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/privacy-first-vs-transparency-first.12057/
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Privacy-Transparency

The participation of the informal poll on dash.org are low to say the least (just 16 members voted), so that poll again should not be used as polling mechanisme

The participation and results of the polling proposal on the masternode network are much more clear and removes any doubt : a strong majority of our network is against the idea of switching from an open-ledger with build-in optional anonymity model (our current model of Dash, which GrandMasterDash calls transparency-first) towards a privacy-first model.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

That discrepancy between end-users and MNOs is exactly why dash will end up irrelevant. It won't happen straight away and in the short term (months), I expect the price to rise... but the competition is so much faster, innovative and stronger. So far, there is no single crypto that captures what I consider to be key requirements for mass adoption of crypto.. but it will emerge. Privacy is one of those key requirements, something that MNOs only understand when they consider their own personal circumstances.

 

[TroyDASH]

That discrepancy between end-users and MNOs is exactly why dash will end up irrelevant. It won't happen straight away and in the short term (months), I expect the price to rise... but the competition is so much faster, innovative and stronger. So far, there is no single crypto that captures what I consider to be key requirements for mass adoption of crypto.. but it will emerge. Privacy is one of those key requirements, something that MNOs only understand when they consider their own personal circumstances.

MNOs are not exempt from needing to mix their coins if they want to do private transactions, like everyone else. MNOs do not have any privileged access to any special protocol that protects their transaction privacy any more than any other dash user. The PrivateSend option is good enough for their transaction privacy, and it's good enough for the transaction privacy for other dash users. There is no discrepancy. The only discrepancy is that MNOs have *less* privacy than other end users do, because unlike end users, MNs are required to have static public IPs which are easier to link to individuals.

 

[demo]

My theory: Dash has a controversial history of being instamined. This poll lends support to the idea that the proceeds of the instamine are still being held by Evan. Evan likely holds many masternodes due to an instamine AND he has changed his stance on privacy. This would explain the poll results.The results reflect the extreme centralization of masternodes by one person (Evan) who has changed his opinion on privacy.

It is unethical to accuse someone without proof. Whether Evan owns many masternodes or not, this can easily be proved if someone analyzes the big data of the budget voting, than can be found here --> https://www.dashninja.pl/budgets.html

For example we can see the proposals of Evan and the proposals that are Evan's interest (like babygirafe's). We can discover the masternode public keys (and IPs) that often support Evan's cause. And that way define for every masternode the probability to be an Evan's masternode. So first analyze the big data, then come here and accuse Evan.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

MNOs are not exempt from needing to mix their coins if they want to do private transactions, like everyone else. MNOs do not have any privileged access to any special protocol that protects their transaction privacy any more than any other dash user. The PrivateSend option is good enough for their transaction privacy, and it's good enough for the transaction privacy for other dash users. There is no discrepancy. The only discrepancy is that MNOs have *less* privacy than other end users do, because unlike end users, MNs are required to have static public IPs which are easier to link to individuals.

And less privacy for MNOs shouldn't bother you because transparency-first is more important to you

 

[demo]

MNs are required to have static public IPs which are easier to link to individuals.

Static IPs? Really? I always thought that dynamic IPs are also allowed.

 

[TroyDASH]

And less privacy for MNOs shouldn't bother you because transparency-first is more important to you

You're changing the definition of transparency-first again, using it in a different sense when it suits you. According to your previous definition, transparency-first refers to the *type of protocol* for transactions on the blockchain, as in that there is a public ledger with an option to mix. It does NOT mean a general valuation of "privacy isn't important or valuable". If MNOs value their privacy then they will use PrivateSend like everyone else, *and* they also would need to take additional measures because they have additional privacy risks that other dash users are not exposed to.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

You're changing the definition of transparency-first again, using it in a different sense when it suits you. According to your previous definition, transparency-first refers to the *type of protocol* for transactions on the blockchain, as in that there is a public ledger with an option to mix. It does NOT mean a general valuation of "privacy isn't important or valuable". If MNOs value their privacy then they will use PrivateSend like everyone else, *and* they also would need to take additional measures because they have additional privacy risks that other dash users are not exposed to.

Indeed, you must be referring to the idea that MNOs might be held complicit in the laundering of coins.. after all, MNs are the key enabler to Private Send. But then when you hide the identity of MNOs you also obscure the distribution and share of holdings held by individuals... that is most definitely an issue of transparency-first, whether it's on the protocol or the transparency for end-users that they can trust the MN network. Take your pick, you're all in for transparency-first or you want to cherry pick?

 

[TroyDASH]

Indeed, you must be referring to the idea that MNOs might be held complicit in the laundering of coins.. after all, MNs are the key enabler to Private Send. But then when you hide the identity of MNOs you also obscure the distribution and share of holdings held by individuals... that is most definitely an issue of transparency-first, whether it's on the protocol or the transparency for end-users that they can trust the MN network. Take your pick, you're all in for transparency-first or you want to cherry pick?

No, I'm referring to the idea that MNs might be concerned about being individually identified regardless of the reason. People have all kinds of reasons for wanting to have their financial holdings be private, as I am sure you know.

Obscuring your holdings is something that is *already available* to all end users. The only reason we are even talking about MNs is because the privacy implications of hosting a node are different, not because PrivateSend is inadequate.

You say that this is an issue of transparency-first, and you favor privacy, so why do you care that masternode operators should be able to be individually identified and made known how many MNs they have? If I am all in for transparency in every respect then why am I the one arguing that everyone, end users and MNs alike, should be able to remain private if they want to?

 

[GrandMasterDash]

No, I'm referring to the idea that MNs might be concerned about being individually identified regardless of the reason. People have all kinds of reasons for wanting to have their financial holdings be private, as I am sure you know.

Obscuring your holdings is something that is *already available* to all end users. The only reason we are even talking about MNs is because the privacy implications of hosting a node are different, not because PrivateSend is inadequate.

You say that this is an issue of transparency-first, and you favor privacy, so why do you care that masternode operators should be able to be individually identified and made known how many MNs they have? If I am all in for transparency in every respect then why am I the one arguing that everyone, end users and MNs alike, should be able to remain private if they want to?

Okay, good question. Imo, there exists a double standard between the privacy needs of end-users and those of MNOs. And it is my belief that both standards can not co-exist; it needs to be one or the other. If dash chooses to maintain these two conflicting standards then each side may validly claim foul play. If end users must be transparency-first then they will rightfully demand that the MN network is also transparent, to dispel MN collusion, or to verify a balanced MN holdings and voting.

Personally, in short, I am pro privacy-first, but I would accept transparency-first if it was fairly applied to both sides. If it must be transparency-first then we need a MN network where all owners are identifiable and publicly accountable. In a transparency-first model, why should end-users accept anything less? The dash network requires the MNs, so why should it's distribution and voting be opaque?

 

[TroyDASH]

Okay, good question. Imo, there exists a double standard between the privacy needs of end-users and those of MNOs. And it is my belief that both standards can not co-exist; it needs to be one or the other. If dash chooses to maintain these two conflicting standards then each side may validly claim foul play. If end users must be transparency-first then they will rightfully demand that the MN network is also transparent, to dispel MN collusion, or to verify a balanced MN holdings and voting.

Personally, in short, I am pro privacy-first, but I would accept transparency-first if it was fairly applied to both sides. If it must be transparency-first then we need a MN network where all owners are identifiable and publicly accountable. In a transparency-first model, why should end-users accept anything less? The dash network requires the MNs, so why should it's distribution and voting be opaque?

But in a transparency-first chain, end users are not required to be personally identifiable if they don't want to be because anybody can use PrivateSend. It would be unfair to require Masternodes to be personally identifiable when end users do not have that requirement. If there was no private option for end users in a transparent chain then I could understand your point, but there is.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

But in a transparency-first chain, end users are not required to be personally identifiable if they don't want to be because anybody can use PrivateSend. It would be unfair to require Masternodes to be personally identifiable when end users do not have that requirement. If there was no private option for end users in a transparent chain then I could understand your point, but there is.

Try saying that to Coinbase users...

 

[TroyDASH]

Try saying that to Coinbase users...

If coinbase were to add a privacy-first coin like XMR, the users wouldn't really have any more privacy there than they would with BTC. Loss of privacy is a side effect of having a third party be your fiat gateway or having them manage your wallet and transact on your behalf.

 

[UdjinM6]

This "privacy/transparency first" discussion is completely off topic here, we have this https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/privacy-first-vs-transparency-first.12057/ long thread already. I understand that it's mostly the same people involved but pls stop discussing everything everywhere and keep discussions more focused.

Also, I think I have to clear up some misconceptions. Shadow is NOT privacy-first or truly anonymous or whatever no matter how hard you want to see it this way - it's yet another transparent blockchain which uses "OP_RETURN + Ring Signatures" combination to mix coins instead of CoinJoin-like mixing. http://explorer.shadow.cash/chain/ShadowCash - 32.3k "tokens" vs 6.6m "coins" i.e. only 0.5% of coins are "private". Regarding the solution itself - it would be quite nice one actually but it just doesn't scale (at least afaik).

 

[GrandMasterDash]

This "privacy/transparency first" discussion is completely off topic here, we have this https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/privacy-first-vs-transparency-first.12057/ long thread already. I understand that it's mostly the same people involved but pls stop discussing everything everywhere and keep discussions more focused.

Also, I think I have to clear up some misconceptions. Shadow is NOT privacy-first or truly anonymous or whatever no matter how hard you want to see it this way - it's yet another transparent blockchain which uses "OP_RETURN + Ring Signatures" combination to mix coins instead of CoinJoin-like mixing. http://explorer.shadow.cash/chain/ShadowCash - 32.3k "tokens" vs 6.6m "coins" i.e. only 0.5% of coins are "private". Regarding the solution itself - it would be quite nice one actually but it just doesn't scale (at least afaik).

Thanks for your input.

The OP of this thread makes it quite clear their concern is about dash's anonymity / fungibility. As you point out, a lot of this discussion is involving the same people as the other thread.. so being we're all talking in the same ballpark, I don't see any problem. You're free to avoid these two threads and peruse other subject matter.

Or perhaps you can suggest ways in which privacy might be improved in dash?

 

[UdjinM6]

...
Or perhaps you can suggest ways in which privacy might be improved in dash?

If I would know of one good and simple enough (migration-wise) I would already be working on implementing/integrating it in Dash and replacing PS, I guess No good candidates so far :-/

 

[demo]

Static IPs? Really? I always thought that dynamic IPs are also allowed.

Dynamic IPs are allowed, but if you use dynamic IP, your payments delay.

Another nail in the coffin of the anonymity of the masternodes.