Governance Proposal : Disable & Remove PrivateSend/CoinJoin (from Official Dash Wallets only)

qwizzie

qwizzie

Well-known member
This Governance proposal just became visible on the Dash network to vote on by Dash masternodes (no, it is not from me).
In a nutshell :

Therefore this Governance proposal seeks to:

Disable and fully remove PrivateSend/CoinJoin from all Official Wallets, meaning: a) from all DCG-released Wallets b) from all Wallets published by developers which could be considered to be "close to DCG" or in "proximity to DCG" or from "a DCG environment"
2) Outsource and externalize all eventual remaining PrivateSend/CoinJoin functionality to an outside party or brand, which is officially unaffiliated with DCG, which will legally allow us plausible deniability, because we "must not have any influence over said entities". This also gives us the ability of officially "protesting" and "condemning" the existence of such counterpartyrisk-less mixing technology, by officially denying our blessing. It goes without saying, that in case this Governance proposal is passing, we must never publicly announce or advertise any inofficial mixing solution anymore, that may still continue operating.
3) Archiving and preserving all PrivateSend/CoinJoin-related Code, for potential future review or reconsideration, should the regulatory climate ever significantly change and the threats and persecution by the worlds governments be relaxed.
4) Sending an "Update Note" to all the Major and Mid-sized Exchange Players out there, that Dash is no longer a "privacy-enhanced" cryptocurrency (this will potentially prevent any wrongful delistings, in case we vote to ditch PrivateSend/CoinJoin)

The passing of this proposal would allow the Dash project to at least stay alive, during the times of harshest persecution of "privacy-enhanced" coins.If we are going to survive the impending mass delisting spree, we will at least have the time to overthink our strategy, adjust the project to the new rules,while at the same time protecting and safeguarding our investment, while still being able to pursue future chances of growth and recovery.
Click to expand...

Topic on itself is interesting, so i created this dash.org/forum thread to discuss it. This Dash Governance proposal most likely got created because :

A : it is very cheap to create Governance proposals / budget proposals these days, as Dash cut the proposal fee from 5 dash to 1 dash
B : there are some rumors recently floating around that mention the EU possibly considering a ban on privacy-enhanced coins like Monero, Zcash and Dash. See : https://www.coindesk.com/policy/202...-coins-could-be-banned-under-leaked-eu-plans/

The voting on this Governance proposal and the full Governance proposal text can be followed and read here : https://www.dashcentral.org/p/DISABLE_REMOVE_PRIVATESEND_COINJOIN

Also a friendly reminder that after the defunding & abandonment of Dash Electrum, there are no longer any non-Official Dash wallets (so far i know) that support Dash PrivateSend / CoinJoin.

Please discuss and provide feedback.
 
Last edited:
AgnewPickens said:
Hear me out, there is a collateral restraint in order for threshold sigs to work, right? Every platform node needs to be
collateralized identically. 1337 Nodes - 1337 collateral requirement, no adjustment to vote weight, 1 platform node vote
is equaly to 1 core node vote. We can make the math harder on whales by making an odd collateral amount to account
for.
Click to expand...
what does this have to do with privatesend?
 
B : there are some rumors recently floating around that mention the EU possibly considering a ban on privacy-enhanced coins like Monero, Zcash and Dash. See : https://www.coindesk.com/policy/202...-coins-could-be-banned-under-leaked-eu-plans/
Click to expand...

I am really starting to doubt the EU is actually considering a ban on privacy enhanced coins / assets, as that would fall under the Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) regulation, which was published on September 24, 2020 and which EU member states already reached an agreement on 30th of June 2022. To be implemented most likely somewhere in 2024.

See : https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/...ed-on-european-crypto-assets-regulation-mica/

(the 'Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Markets in Crypto-assets' is the actual MiCa agreement text and can be found at the bottom there, as a source)

No mention of a ban on privacy enhanced assets within the EU, anywhere in the actual Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) agreement text. Which makes me wonder if the leaked Czech draft change, was actually part of the review of the MiCa regulation draft, before all EU members signed this agreement and the Czech draft change simply got rejected / excluded in the final MiCa regulation agreement text.

I did notice a deleted paragraph 53 in the MiCa regulation agreement text, maybe that somehow caused the misinformation ?

Knipsel.JPG


I asked both Coindesk and the Council of the EU - Public Information Service for clarification.

To be continued.
 
Last edited:
I received a very short reply back from Council of the EU - Public Information Service late last year that the MiCa regulation has not been finalized yet and that this finalization is planned for 2023. I guess only then will it become clear if the leaked Czech draft change (mentioning a ban on privacy-enhanced crypto assets) is included or not in the final agreement text.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top