demo
Well-known member
hehe.. It is the curse of voting with numbers, that prevents them for doing it!
Isnt it strange, this curse to be active for 2000 years?
Dash needs to implement Shadowcash technology and truly be anonymous.
- Thread starter xdashguy
- Start date
hehe.. It is the curse of voting with numbers, that prevents them for doing it!
Isnt it strange, this curse to be active for 2000 years?
demo
Well-known member
Additonaly, vcash uses udp.
Udp means multicast.
Multicast means many people hear.
This is good for blockchain ledger applications, but it is a bad practice when implementing a ring signature scheme or a zeroknowledge proof.
This is bad for Vcash.
Zerocoin protocol should be implemented in tcp.
Udp means multicast.
Multicast means many people hear.
This is good for blockchain ledger applications, but it is a bad practice when implementing a ring signature scheme or a zeroknowledge proof.
This is bad for Vcash.
Zerocoin protocol should be implemented in tcp.
Last edited:
Solarminer
Well-known member
Vcash encrypts all their traffic. Don't think applications can snoop like you are thinking of.
demo
Well-known member
As I also explained here, whatever you do, and whatever encryption you are using, the one who controls the Autonomous system of the Border Gateway protocol, can analyze your traffic and discover you, sooner or later.
If you use udp, chances are that more than one Autonomoys Systems (AS) are listening and are analyzing your crypto data when you are trying the ring signature protocol (due to the multicast nature of udp used in Vcash), so you have to trust more than two AS ( not only the one you belong and the one you send your ring signature). And this is bad, the more AS you are forced to trust, the worst it is.
Last edited:
demo
Well-known member
By the way, I keep asking when the governance will be ready in Vcash, and they keep delete my message. And then, the thread was closed for further responses. Strange behavior....
So I posted a poll there, and I am waiting for responses.
bertlebbert
Well-known member
So they 'keep delete your message' in the Vcash forum? thanks for sharing that here with us in the Dash forum
Molefish
New member
^ This ^
Exactly... without the visible, explorable blockchain I wouldn't use Dash at all. I simply don't trust in hidden ledger activity - I get plenty of that with the banking system! That's why I'm in here and not using Monero or Zcash/etc...
With Dash, I agree it appears to be the best of both worlds with room to grow in either or both directions more freely.
I will give you this, that it is a little expensive (not price wise but time wise) to mix Dash. It would be nice if it were faster and were more automatic.
But is it a choice? can it go both ways? (anonymous and fully auditable?)
It doesn't require trust, it gives untrusted statistical improbability of being deanonymized based on collusion of very highly improbable groups of up to 90% control of all MNs (extreme improbability) This is why we have a choice of how many rounds of mixing you want to use. How many MNs do you think are spying? Base the number of rounds on how strongly you want your anonymity to be.
This is not vaporware. A new solution came up when Evolution was conceived. Correct me if I'm wrong, but with Evolution, wallets will access the network via the DAPI by going through a MN. This MN acts as a conduit but is random and doesn't record anything. It simply passes the info packets along like any other node, then the request/info is sent to the quorum who have no idea what IP address the request is coming from. The mix, etc... and send the inputs/outputs to the miners for recording on the blockchain. That's the real flow of information and it effectively blinds the masternodes in the quorum. If you REALLY want to be certain you are in control, you could run your own full node or MN and run all your requests through it. Sure, the MN quorums will see your node, but they won't know if it's your personal requests going through it or someone elses. This is actually possible to do now, I believe. I remember something like this way back in the beginning, I just don't remember the dash.conf entry???
Actually, the majority of Dashers have agreed that they want Dash to have the choice of anonymity and full disclosure. Full disclosure is extremely important for some people. Charities can show exactly where funds are spent - this is true for the Dash Foundation as well as Dash Core's own spending. You can look at their accounts and see where the funds go, and they make a monthly report to show the community how those funds were spent. You can see it for yourself if you want to dig in (and some people do dig in) This keeps corruption to a minimum. Trust should only go so far!
1. True, and I'm sorry that Darkcoin's evolution into more than just a fully fungible coin has been in a direction you don't approve of. Shadowcash, monero, zcoin, etc... are great alternatives for that.
2. Dash is in reality as good a anonymity as monero. You'd have to believe a HUGE number of MN owners are colluding and spying to have Dash be inferior. Sorry, but I simply don't believe that for a second, and it's way to far gone for anyone to buy up enough Dash to even get 50% control of the MN network. Also, with masternode blinding which will be done in Evolution, it's a mute point.
3. As I said, Dash'd anonymity is in fact better than Monero's especially when you take into account that all is hidden in the monero blockchain and you don't know who started the thing and what is being recorded since the beginning. But on the top of the worst reason to use monero list is that you can NOT verify the number of coins existing on the blockchain as it is indecipherable. This makes monero unusable as a financial instrument. Sure, drug dealers will use anything if they think it can protect them, and that's fine. They don't care about a proper economic solution, this works now and that's all that matters.
A long term currency solution with libertarian values - to be auditable, and have a controlled emissions rate, whatever that is, that can't be manipulated by politics and is always and forever predictable requires an open blockchain.
This argument comes, in my opinion, from extreme shortsightedness. Dash changed the moment Evan Duffield decided to quit his job and devote full time to Darkcoin. AT that moment, he had the epiphany that he could actually make a real solid currency that could replace fiat. Yes, REPLACE FIAT. He didn't see exactly how he would code it, but he understood economics and programming, and could see no issue that couldn't be resolved. And I believe Dash will indeed become the number 1 fiat replacement in the world because we have the talent and the gumption to think it. True, the core team is a little shy of saying it, but Dash is working toward Fiat Replacement, there is no doubt, and as crazy as that seems, there is no reason at all why this can't happen. Sure, the Government can say their fiat, which will soon also be on a blockchain, is the only "coin" accepted for taxes, etc... but they will be unable to enforce their highly inflationary currency on the populous for daily use. And in so, they will be capped at the knees in f*cking us over with inflation (a lovely [SL]little[/SL] massive invisible tax)
This is the vision now, and if it doesn't fit in where you want it, I'd suggest going to one of the other projects, because they will probably do well as well. Because the currency competition is on, and many will do well, not just 1.[/QUOTE]
And if I've said all this before, sorry, my memory sucks
Last edited:
This is FALSE. It does not take a "huge number of masternodes owners colluding" to compromise the Dash network. All it takes is a few hosting providers that are required by a secret warrant to compromise dash. Dash is 1 secret warrant sent to amazon.com and rackspace.com and the network is compromised.
This is FALSE. Monero coin supply is verifiable.
You cannot replace Fiat until you can replace Cash. You cannot replace Cash until you are Anonymous because Cash is Anonymous.
You can see the poll results. The vast majority of users want anonymity. I am not sure why you keep arguing as if some transactions cannot be non-anonymous if so elected. It is not either-or. The current situation is that nothing is anonymous. All users want is that dash offers some anonymity (and no, the current mixing is not anonymous as previously outined in this thread).
Warrents won't tell them who mixed what as this information is not recorded, nor are the IP addresses. Unless, of course, you have a large colluding group of MN owners. This can't happen, a warrant will give them no information they can't get running their own node. There is nothing to fear here.
Please tell me how I can verifiy that no false TX can be inserted or have been inserted?
Yes, cash is pretty anonymous (though each bill has a serial number and can be tracked in a limited way) But fiat as a whole is absolutely not anonymous. Dash has both qualities and can make a perfect fiat replacement.
Read your own thread here.
I'm not trying to get in your face, honestly I'm not, but you seem to be convinced you're right despite arguments to the contrary. I can't help you there, except to suggest you look into these things deeper.
And if a state actor says to Amazon "Compromise those nodes" what do you think Amazon will do? It will just alter the nodes so everything is logged. Or, even more likely, a state actor such as the NSA will compromise insecure master nodes using exploits in the stack running the masternodes (operating system, other software, or bugs in the master node software, etc) in order to modify the system so that it will log the data.
Masternodes are public. That means there are three vectors to attack: master node owners, hosting companies, and the actual server (remotely via exploit or physically by visiting the data center). That is even before they start buying dash and creating their own master nodes (which they will never need to do as they will just ask amazon to exploit the servers).
Relatedly, master node owners themselves are attacked via legal attacks such as the claim that running a masternode is money laundering since it is actively mixing.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/4ec12v/if_someone_hacked_themselves_184bn_monero_like/
I think you may need to look deeper. Certainly, the few people replying to this thread are invested in the status-quo or maybe think admitting the status-quo is wrong will hurt your investment. However, many people in this thread have spoke up. And, more importantly, look at the pool which condenses community opinion to a binary option. The results are overwhelming at 24/3. I invite a moderator to make the poll voting public so we can see how each user on the forum voted. I highly doubt that someone created a bunch of new accounts and voted "yes" to spite Dash.
How can they do that, if I am the one installing the MNs? Replace the program on my machine, with my passwords without my knowing it? Sure they could probably do this to one person with their resources, but to do it with 5000? Besides, how many MNs are on amazon? I don't think more than 1/3 if that many! And that's if Amazon is still popular with people.
The state installing a different program on you, it's really not that easy! You'd see that it's been stopped and restarted, there are tell tale signs, and it would raise alarms.
And besides that, if they can attack Dash nodes, what about other coin nodes? And how many would they have to have control over to make any headway?
You gotta think this through, what they would have to do, what they would have to create and slip under everyone's nose to get away with it.
I mean, the downloads have a hash you can check, they have a particular file size.... if anything is off, you'd know by checking. Sure, not everyone is vigilant, but enough are and they'll sound the alarms.
It's simply not possible to do or probably more accurately, not possible to get away with for any length of time, and it would cost them far to much to make it worth while.
Honestly, I am indeed not so paranoid over my transactions. Hell, I'd love to see the government pay millions of dollars to get at my information to find out that my worst crime is that I drink too much diet coke; I'd have a fantastic laugh. And though I think Dash with mixed funds (8 rounds or more) would be safer to use for illegal purposes than Monero, I also don't care if every drug dealer only accepts Monero, it's not a need on my radar. In fact it would make DAsh even more private if there really were a potential of the US government wasting money on trying to deanonymize a crypto because, if they decided to mess with Monero, they wouldn't be poking around DAsh because that's where the black markets are. My sights are on the other 99% of the economy.
Now if there were a more anonymous solution that preserved the ability to be fully open and accountable while also having the choice of being fully, 100% anonymous (no such thing) I'd be all for it. But the blockchain has to be clear and verifiable. Every input, every creation, every output.
The state installing a different program on you, it's really not that easy! You'd see that it's been stopped and restarted, there are tell tale signs, and it would raise alarms.
And besides that, if they can attack Dash nodes, what about other coin nodes? And how many would they have to have control over to make any headway?
You gotta think this through, what they would have to do, what they would have to create and slip under everyone's nose to get away with it.
I mean, the downloads have a hash you can check, they have a particular file size.... if anything is off, you'd know by checking. Sure, not everyone is vigilant, but enough are and they'll sound the alarms.
It's simply not possible to do or probably more accurately, not possible to get away with for any length of time, and it would cost them far to much to make it worth while.
Honestly, I am indeed not so paranoid over my transactions. Hell, I'd love to see the government pay millions of dollars to get at my information to find out that my worst crime is that I drink too much diet coke; I'd have a fantastic laugh. And though I think Dash with mixed funds (8 rounds or more) would be safer to use for illegal purposes than Monero, I also don't care if every drug dealer only accepts Monero, it's not a need on my radar. In fact it would make DAsh even more private if there really were a potential of the US government wasting money on trying to deanonymize a crypto because, if they decided to mess with Monero, they wouldn't be poking around DAsh because that's where the black markets are. My sights are on the other 99% of the economy.
Now if there were a more anonymous solution that preserved the ability to be fully open and accountable while also having the choice of being fully, 100% anonymous (no such thing) I'd be all for it. But the blockchain has to be clear and verifiable. Every input, every creation, every output.
Last edited:
Lord Of The Internet
Active member
i was going to say this pretty much word for word.
believe me when i say that the US government is more than willing to spend billions of dollars to compromise a system worth mere millions because they (the goverment) has a problem with that system. time and resources are not a problem for them.
i'm still reading up on evolution so i don't know if it solves any of these concerns.
halso
Active member
How many forums are u trolling demo?
demo
Well-known member
You are trolling. I am telling the truth.
I participate only to the cryptocoin forums which support the governance feature.
Unfortunately only the dash coin has governance until now. (thanks to Evan)
This is the reason I am stuck here.
Last edited:
BenTucker
Member
I really am not liking the responses here. They gravitate between denial of the state's capabilities to compromise any anonymity as the network currently stands, telling people to basically just go use other coins with better anon features (as opposed to pledging not to sellout and sacrifice the original aim, of anon tech, for mass adoption, when both can be worked on and achieved, even if mass adoption is slightly slowed or overall decreased in some sectors of the economy...some of which we should be indifferent to helping with this tech anyways), and ad hominem attacks by calling people worried the project COULD sellout for the money and not adhere to the principles on which most of us assumed were central to the tech's mission in the first place (anonymity). I earlier was trying to calm my side of this debate and asked for patience...but I am getting more worried based upon some of the comments I've read since. I'd like the Core to make an official statement as to whether they plan to make the project more anonymous. If not, I'm done. I have no support to give to any project more interested in getting rich than protecting consumer and merchant anonymity so being tracked by or contributing to state coffers become essentially optional, not able to be enforced otherwise (whether law says they can avoid being tracked or not, have to pay taxes or not).
Can we drop the conspiracy theories on both sides? One side seems to me to be insisting it's a planned conspiracy of infiltration to forsake anonymity so larger and less principled investors can make profits larger and faster via mass adoption (not that most mass adoption is ruined by anonymity features necessarily...it is possible, even if not for a couple years, to be anonymized and have most merchants still mass adopt). The other side keeps claiming people's intentions are hidden and they are merely trolling for FUD reasons, or worse yet are all sock puppet accounts of one or two complainers. NEITHER has any evidence. PLEASE feel free to verify this is my only account. I will help with this myself if asked. Can we stick to the debate on its merits, and realize not everyone who disagrees with you and takes the time to explain their positions is a "troll"? Next we'll go all alt-right neo-fascist and start calling anyone who doesn't agree a "cuck" or "cultural Marxist"...lol.
I only care about any crypto project insofar as that project increases the ability to disrupt the current statist/crony economic order (Dash does this on several fronts, via decentralization, anonymity features that can be further improved, and many of the Evolution features which directly put it in competition with banks, credit cards, and payments processors like PayPal) AND the ability to subvert the state's and it's cronies' ability to control, track, extort, etc. us all (the latter is merely a key feature that enables part of the former). If this project moves away from the latter (the ability to subvert), then the project is dead to me no matter how much money it makes for investors. People who would sell their souls (so to speak) for money over advancement of human liberty and prosperity (which means disruption AND subversion of existing state capabilities to track and tax) are not ethical people. I would never put any trust in such people, other than to trust they will sell you out in a second to save their own asses or their own cash.
Again, give the devs/Core time to discuss and make an official statement. If they refuse or make a statement we don't like in the next few months, I cannot give investment advice....I don't think that's ethical. I think one must instead tell people where they put their own money, and let that be the advice-for-what-it's-worth. So, I will say, If no statement or a bad one comes on this issue over the next few months, I will cease to be invested in this project and move to another one which can adopt the features Dash has that are good, but leave out the sellout shit (if there were such a move to forsake anonymity improvements, I'd call this "selling out", and I'd think I'd be on pretty solid ground with that, given the original name and purpose of Dash). The other option before that is for MNs to test the teeth of the DGBB and overrule the Core/devs, even firing them if necessary...but financially, the MNs may not be incentivized to do the ethical thing here, so I wouldn't bet on that working...further reason that fractional votes in Evo would be huge, as users will be theoretically able to overrule MNs on this type of issue if in sufficient number relative to MNs).
So, can we get an official statement over the next few months on this issue? Or is this project now an aspiring facilitator/collaborator/enabler/aspiring crony of the state? I definitely side with calm and reason and say the project's people deserve the benefit of the doubt and that a statement will be forthcoming and good...it will explain labor constraints and current timelines and funding, and then go on to express a definite want to address the points of failure in anonymity that others in this thread have so eloquently and repeatedly explained. I do not at this point think so little of the Core/devs to think they would want to forsake future anonymity improvements. I just think, as of now, that they have funding and therefore labor/time constraints, and they chose the priority of Evo over immediate concerns they feel can be addressed later in the anonymity (which I agree with this priority, thus far). I just don't want the anonymity to cease to be a priority at all or fall so low in priorities that it isn't addressed in a RELATIVELY timely manner.
Can we drop the conspiracy theories on both sides? One side seems to me to be insisting it's a planned conspiracy of infiltration to forsake anonymity so larger and less principled investors can make profits larger and faster via mass adoption (not that most mass adoption is ruined by anonymity features necessarily...it is possible, even if not for a couple years, to be anonymized and have most merchants still mass adopt). The other side keeps claiming people's intentions are hidden and they are merely trolling for FUD reasons, or worse yet are all sock puppet accounts of one or two complainers. NEITHER has any evidence. PLEASE feel free to verify this is my only account. I will help with this myself if asked. Can we stick to the debate on its merits, and realize not everyone who disagrees with you and takes the time to explain their positions is a "troll"? Next we'll go all alt-right neo-fascist and start calling anyone who doesn't agree a "cuck" or "cultural Marxist"...lol.
I only care about any crypto project insofar as that project increases the ability to disrupt the current statist/crony economic order (Dash does this on several fronts, via decentralization, anonymity features that can be further improved, and many of the Evolution features which directly put it in competition with banks, credit cards, and payments processors like PayPal) AND the ability to subvert the state's and it's cronies' ability to control, track, extort, etc. us all (the latter is merely a key feature that enables part of the former). If this project moves away from the latter (the ability to subvert), then the project is dead to me no matter how much money it makes for investors. People who would sell their souls (so to speak) for money over advancement of human liberty and prosperity (which means disruption AND subversion of existing state capabilities to track and tax) are not ethical people. I would never put any trust in such people, other than to trust they will sell you out in a second to save their own asses or their own cash.
Again, give the devs/Core time to discuss and make an official statement. If they refuse or make a statement we don't like in the next few months, I cannot give investment advice....I don't think that's ethical. I think one must instead tell people where they put their own money, and let that be the advice-for-what-it's-worth. So, I will say, If no statement or a bad one comes on this issue over the next few months, I will cease to be invested in this project and move to another one which can adopt the features Dash has that are good, but leave out the sellout shit (if there were such a move to forsake anonymity improvements, I'd call this "selling out", and I'd think I'd be on pretty solid ground with that, given the original name and purpose of Dash). The other option before that is for MNs to test the teeth of the DGBB and overrule the Core/devs, even firing them if necessary...but financially, the MNs may not be incentivized to do the ethical thing here, so I wouldn't bet on that working...further reason that fractional votes in Evo would be huge, as users will be theoretically able to overrule MNs on this type of issue if in sufficient number relative to MNs).
So, can we get an official statement over the next few months on this issue? Or is this project now an aspiring facilitator/collaborator/enabler/aspiring crony of the state? I definitely side with calm and reason and say the project's people deserve the benefit of the doubt and that a statement will be forthcoming and good...it will explain labor constraints and current timelines and funding, and then go on to express a definite want to address the points of failure in anonymity that others in this thread have so eloquently and repeatedly explained. I do not at this point think so little of the Core/devs to think they would want to forsake future anonymity improvements. I just think, as of now, that they have funding and therefore labor/time constraints, and they chose the priority of Evo over immediate concerns they feel can be addressed later in the anonymity (which I agree with this priority, thus far). I just don't want the anonymity to cease to be a priority at all or fall so low in priorities that it isn't addressed in a RELATIVELY timely manner.
Last edited:
HashPower2CashShower
New member
BenTucker = xdashguy? Easy facade of half helping but really not. The most constructive criticism we got.
crowning
Well-known member
This!
It's only a matter of time until you either a) have to pay tax for your Dash income from mining/masternoding and/or b) have to explain your bank where all this money comes from.
Having proof via a traceable blockchain is the only way to show that you don't do money-laundering or other illegal stuff.
That's why I don't mix Dash which is supposed to end in a Masternode.
BenTucker
Member
Another conspiracy theory. PLEASE, I beg the admins, prove I'm one person with one account. I will help prove it by posting on my social media under my real name as to my name here. Another poster also asked to be exposed so this nonsense troll shit about us all being one person can stop. I am not attempting to be anonymous here anyways...the pseudonym is more to highlight my political philosophy (Benjamin Tucker was a philosopher who died in the early 20th century). I'm getting tired of trolls like this one calling us trolls through psychological projection. Stop trolling us, thanks. And rating my posts "trolling" or "dumb" is not an argument against anything we're saying, so quit trying to distract and add to the conversation....or suck my...well, you know.
BenTucker
Member
A) It's not only a matter of time if you do something to make it more anonymous...I mean, cash already facilitates not paying taxes for many people. If you don't want the same level of anonymity that helps me and others NOT pay the extortion (taxes), then you don't really want to be a form of cash. And some of us see money laundering as heroic in a counter-economic sense...so don't assume we're all afraid of jail or ashamed of black market activity. Some of us realize too that in about 3-4 years 2/3rds of the world's workers will be working under the table, and rightly so, to survive. People got to eat, screw the government coffers. So, what about them and them being unbanked? Why would they choose Dash over cash if it will mean paying taxes they can't afford to pay? The point should be to make it so the authorities can't PROVE you owe anything. It should be to PROTECT the MN investors by making it so there is no info to get that can compromise them and lead to such a charge. I am losing faith quickly over this thread...
B) Why do you have to explain it? IT WASN'T ANONYMIZED WELL ENOUGH. Many people don't pay taxes they "should" right now. They use cash to do this. Are you wanting to be cash or not? They are unbanked usually now, so it's not a worry for them. Plus...who the hell is still using banks regularly? Not me. I can open an account briefly if needed and then immediately close it if necessary...but why do that when I can pay someone to set up an exchange account that links to their bank account directly, all in their name to move my funds? THEY aren't at threat either, as long as in a single 12 month period we don't move $10,000 from a single source through that account. It doesn't have to be reported until then, legally (in this country anyways). The VAST majority of merchants and users will not have any issue avoiding the authorities. I can do it right now with little effort, and little balls (which is why most people don't do it - they're cowards, so they let threats control them, despite the risk versus reward and ethics of it all)...so if anonymity is further improved, it's even easier!
Besides, the law is not that you have to prove you DO NOT money-launder or avoid taxes...the law is the prosecution has to prove you DID do those things. You don't have to prove a negative in logic. Hence, the law is set up so you don't have to prove any such negative. They have to have a way to show an income for you before taxing you for it. If they do, you then have to prove why you didn't owe the taxes in an audit. But you NEVER have to prove you DIDN'T commit a crime. They have to prove, within reasonable doubt, that you DID. So, make it harder to gather that evidence then! Stop giving in out of fear. Stop facilitating your and my and others' oppression. Don't seek to help them. This is what it seems like here...giving in to them and refusing to do what Darkcoin was meant to do to begin with...facilitate subversion of laws that restrict peaceful transactions! I can see the PR shit about the focus being fungibility...but if this is more than just PR, why were we told that changing the name of the coin to Dash didn't change the mission or features (present or to be developed)? Was this a lie, or indeed is there merely a shift in order of priorities (which made sense, BTW)? I give the benefit of the doubt and say it was the latter...but my faith in that is quickly waning as more people seem to be fine with taking that govt d*ck up the a$$, and thanking them for it to boot.
I love this project. I talk about it constantly. We are doing a conference in May at a world famous anarchist skate park (with seating for 200 people) where I am giving a speech partly focused on Dash. I was planning to submit to the network a proposal to fund some of it, given we could make it obligatory or incentivized to download the wallet and use it exclusively at their concession stands. My plan was to give away $5 in Dash to everyone who downloaded the wallet. This place also print their own banners, stickers, etc., and we'd print a HUGE banner showing the conference was sponsored by Dash. We would have stickers everywhere telling people where to get it for concession use. The concessions would have "Dash only" signs. We have 2 HUGE annual parties there that would also be affected if this first experiment worked out. People live in this place full time too...so it would not be just for 2 yearly parties and several yearly conferences.
I'm starting to think I may need to change the speech and switch to "X only" with another currency (I really hope not). Why? Because we won't support a project which aims at being a mutual bank (an anarchist idea, BTW) and yet doesn't follow through on the whole purpose of that bank...to subvert the state's ability to FORCE you to use their currency as opposed to the digital one, and to FORCE you to pay tribute to the rulers against your will. All this fetishism for compliance/mass adoption over protection of MN operators from having info which makes them targets of investigations and enforcement, not to mention being threatened to snitch on users, is saying "users and MN operators can be compromised, but we don't care...f### you, pay me...and pay the mafia-state too, serf." If this is the attitude, then why do we keep hearing about "slow and steady wins the race"? Clearly this is a RUSH on the compliance/mass adoption side. I'm fine with that, IF it is not so disproportionate to the rush for better anonymity to protect MN operators and users from being targets of authorities.
By your comment, one could think you might be in favor of "turning off" the spork that controls mixing entirely (I think that's possible, right?).
I and those who will be coming to this conference are not interested in a traceable blockchain if that means it cannot be made anonymous in a better way than currently in place, and I am not going to lie to them. They want a blockchain tech which makes it so they won't be able to be dentified in the first place, unless they choose to be identified. THAT should be the goal, unless greed is getting in the way or ethics don't matter at all.
This thread gets worse and worse every time I come back to it hoping for some sign of good news...
Last edited: