• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Dash needs to implement Shadowcash technology and truly be anonymous.

Do you think Dash fungibility / anonymity is a critical feature?

  • Total voters
    45
So a cryptographic solution in addition to the existing mixing solution? That sounds like not a bad idea to me...
I'm curious how complicated would this be to now incorporate into Dash? Seems to be lots on the plate already.
 
bertlebbert said:
So a cryptographic solution in addition to the existing mixing solution? That sounds like not a bad idea to me...
I'm curious how complicated would this be to now incorporate into Dash? Seems to be lots on the plate already.
Click to expand...

That is why I recommend to implement Shadowcash technology. Their technology is also built on bitcon core code just like ours. As a result, they have done 90% of all the work. Just copy their code and implement into the Dash system.
 
ec1warc1 said:
Why do Dash users not mix? Lack of interest? Lack of demand? Lack of understanding?
Click to expand...

1) Dash is not used for commerce yet. It is mostly used for speculation. As a result, there is little need for privacy in its current form. One big reason why it is not used for commercetransactions is likely because it is offers poor privacy. So, given that, why not just use bitcoin which has much less friction when using it for commerce?

2) Another big reason is usability. Current mixing costs money and takes a loooong time. As a result, it is inconvenient.

ec1warc1 said:
How does a "cryptographic means" work and is it feasible?
Click to expand...

Yes, it has already been shown to work in Monero, which is based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CryptoNote The CryptoNote website provides more: https://cryptonote.org/inside
https://cryptonote.org/inside
The cryptonote coin (which monero is based on) is built on new blockchain that is not compatible with bitcoin. However, Shadowcash is built on bitcoin-like blockchain and it implements similar technology of ring signatures.

Watch the video on Shadowcash here: https://shadowproject.io/en
 
It would be interesting to see what people who are against the idea have to say, perhaps a comparison of PROS vs CONS, including the time to implement. I believe that such a move would require a vote.
 
My perception is that that would kill dash, look at malero. It's a great plus to have a plain, tracable blockchain and the option to mix. Best of both worlds and freedom to choose in any situation.
Besides, more important work is being done right now, tinkering with low level stuff without a good reason would be a waste of time. If peeps want absolute anon stuff they can just buy molero or zcash.
 
Vedran Yoweri said:
My perception is that that would kill dash, look at malero. It's a great plus to have a plain, tracable blockchain and the option to mix. Best of both worlds and freedom to choose in any situation.
Besides, more important work is being done right now, tinkering with low level stuff without a good reason would be a waste of time. If peeps want absolute anon stuff they can just buy molero or zcash.
Click to expand...

Yes, best of both worlds, but why make a traceable blockchain by default? - what's wrong with fungibility by default and traceability when you want it? Tbh, making a case for other cryptos seems a bit diversionary. I hope limited resources / priority is not the only reason because I think those kind of resources could be brought in accordingly.
 
Agree that mixing isnt great but adopting shadow cash sounds like relaunching the whole project.
 
halso said:
Agree that mixing isnt great but adopting shadow cash sounds like relaunching the whole project.
Click to expand...

Not really. It would actually be sticking to the goals and values of what the project started with. The shadowcash code is already written. It is not like current devs need to spend a lot of time of new code and inventing the concept. The hard work was already done by the Shadowcash team.
 
xdashguy said:
1) Yes, though it is rare. The only advantage would be if irrefutable proof that a payment was sent was needed from one identifiable address to another (think of a contract that specified this). That is the only instance I can think of and it would be an edge case. It is rare enough that I personally think removing non-private transactions (not even making it an option) is best.
Click to expand...
(in response to the question "Is there any advantage to offering standard, non-private transactions?")
Considering dash's alliance with Coinfirm, see @amanda_b_johnson 's latest video, I think the fact that we offer both open transactions and private transactions suits dash well. Here is the video:

comments?
 
80%+ on this poll say dash should truly be anonymous, which goes against this Coinfirm partnership. It's also a significant development that not a single MNO voted for. We should de-fund the core team and stop this ridiculous work... they're working on stuff that most users don't want when they should be working on more important things, like re-enforcing dash's fungibility.. completely opposite now to how dash started out.
 
GrandMasterDash said:
We should de-fund the core team and stop this ridiculous work
Click to expand...
I would not agree with this statement. I see the Coinfirm partnership as a move in the right direction. I am not a core team member. However, your post does bring up some interesting concerns. Was the partnership voted on? Should it have been voted on? Should all partnerships, even those that do not require funding, be voted on?
GrandMasterDash said:
completely opposite now to how dash started out.
Click to expand...
Dash will evolve over the years. I don't expect it to remain perfectly true to its original ideas. Bitcoin can stay stuck in the mud and we will see if that is a strength or a weakness in the coming years. I suppose it will be a weakness as Dash continues to improve.
 
ec1warc1 said:
Dash will evolve over the years. I don't expect it to remain perfectly true to its original ideas. Bitcoin can stay stuck in the mud and we will see if that is a strength or a weakness in the coming years. I suppose it will be a weakness as Dash continues to improve.
Click to expand...

I do not agree with this statement. It's like saying, "US dollars will evolve over the years"... yeah, got that right, that's exactly why we're here, because the rules of the game kept changing... off the gold standard and subject to continuous manipulation / devaluation. The so called "limited supply" of crypto does not add value, more that the constant changing of properties can also devalue... geeks are the new bankers, changing the rules.

It's exactly the same with Ethereum et al... making material changes yet retaining the name and userbase. Such material changes should become the fork. Instead, we (the users) are in a situation where we must move to a fork to retain the original properties of the crypto. That, imo, is backwards and it gives little credibility to crypto as a whole.
 
GrandMasterDash said:
I do not agree with this statement. It's like saying, "US dollars will evolve over the years"... yeah, got that right
Click to expand...
So, you are against the new release of "Dash Evolution" because it is a change, an addition of features?
Wasn't the ability to vote an added feature? Are you against voting?
 
ec1warc1 said:
So, you are against the new release of "Dash Evolution" because it is a change, an addition of features?
Wasn't the ability to vote an added feature? Are you against voting?
Click to expand...

Indeed, the voting system wasn't robust enough to protect against rogue actors infiltrating dash and carrying out work without approval e.g. Coinfirm integration.

AFAIK, in it's present form, Evolution will not be forced upon people and competing wallets will be possible. But yes, and with voting, I am against significant protocol changes that choose to go against end users wishes. End users have certain, not unreasonable, expectations; for example, that the gold they hold doesn't suddenly and magically transform into silver.
 
I downloaded the ShadowCash client last night. It's pretty impressive, and it is how i imagine Evo is going to look. It also has a placeholder for mkt apps.

Their website also has a road map which is very detailed, with clear deliverables and associated timelines. Something we dont do very well.

Their shadow send solution also looks superior.

But I still think Dash has a better chance of broader scale adoption. Assuming we can get privacy solution working properly.
 
IMO, security, speed and efficiency, with a user friendly GUI, should be among the critical factors of this service project.
Accessible fiat gateways NOT dependent upon 'other' coins is also of great importance.

IF privacy is the primary goal, to obfuscate the top Snoops on the planet, (who DO have the largest funding), ALL other aspects of acceptance will need to be set aside.
Most likely, permanently... "They" are quite aggressive.

When and if extreme mixing is requested by a user, it should remain clearly identified as an app separate from basic wallet functions.

1% of a market is too small, to set as a goal.

Yes, I fully realize this project originated in DarkCoin venue... time to change focus to mass acceptance of personal banking and P2P.

( ...and this is rather poorly written and presented. Sry. )
rc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top