I wrote the following post:
Any chance you can give us a link; trawling through your old posts trying to find the one you mean is boring.
I have developed a design that has all the advantages Vitalik describes for private block chains, but on a public block chain.
The scalability white paper he linked to in that article is a more abstract and generalized description of the scalability design I had also invented around the time he published this paper. This is the first time I've seen this research.
Afaics his abstract paper does not deal with some of the intricacies of the economics that have to be solved in order to make the design actually work in the real world. Also he apparently hasn't realized that it is possible to filter out a 51% attack.
Vitalik's sample-and-fallback scheme appears to be well less well defined than mine. His on quick glance appears to be more heuristic, but I need to take more time to study his paper.
I can assure you that my white paper is much simpler to digest. And more direct to the point.
The thread's opening post is reasonable but I didn't have time to check all the detailed points for absolute correctness. You will need to add my Delegated Transaction Consensus algorithm once it is published.
The first few seconds of this interview with bytemaster (Daniel Larimer) explains they hide both the values and whom you are sending to (i.e. the payee):
https://beyondbitcoin.org/bitshares-dev-hangout-bytemaster-stealth-confidential-transactions/
In other words in the terminology of the Cryptonote white paper, they have unlinkability but not untraceability.
He admits this at 13:45 mins point and (in his non-analytical summary) he highly understates the block chain analysis that can be done with traceability because they have not hidden the payer. For another thing he completely discounts the possibility that the adversary is gaining access to some of the hidden values because the payer and payee both know the transferred value, which then rapidly breaks down his other assumptions. The merging of balancing he is suggesting at 21:00 will break untraceability.
They accomplished the easy part. It is combining that with untraceability that seemed nearly impossible to achieve without Zerocash's flaws. But finally after many days of brain stumping I did figure out how to do it.
Well I have them beat. In July I wrote a white paper where I can hide the values, the payee, and the payer. Thus I also have untraceability. And I don't have any of the setup issues that plague Zerocash! I invented the holy grail of on chain anonymity.
My white paper is entitled Zero Knowledge Transactions.
P.S. About the 9 min point, bytemaster is explaining that payees can't anonymously scan for their Stealth (unlinkable) transactions, which means they even break the unlinkability. Very sloppy. Yes he is correct that it breaks scalability which is one of Monero's issues. I have solved this issue also!
DPoS - Delegated Proof of Stake (Bitshares)
...
H) Anonymity functions in progress: http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17687.30.html
...
H) Anonymity functions in progress: http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17687.30.html
The first few seconds of this interview with bytemaster (Daniel Larimer) explains they hide both the values and whom you are sending to (i.e. the payee):
https://beyondbitcoin.org/bitshares-dev-hangout-bytemaster-stealth-confidential-transactions/
In other words in the terminology of the Cryptonote white paper, they have unlinkability but not untraceability.
He admits this at 13:45 mins point and (in his non-analytical summary) he highly understates the block chain analysis that can be done with traceability because they have not hidden the payer. For another thing he completely discounts the possibility that the adversary is gaining access to some of the hidden values because the payer and payee both know the transferred value, which then rapidly breaks down his other assumptions. The merging of balancing he is suggesting at 21:00 will break untraceability.
They accomplished the easy part. It is combining that with untraceability that seemed nearly impossible to achieve without Zerocash's flaws. But finally after many days of brain stumping I did figure out how to do it.
Well I have them beat. In July I wrote a white paper where I can hide the values, the payee, and the payer. Thus I also have untraceability. And I don't have any of the setup issues that plague Zerocash! I invented the holy grail of on chain anonymity.
My white paper is entitled Zero Knowledge Transactions.
P.S. About the 9 min point, bytemaster is explaining that payees can't anonymously scan for their Stealth (unlinkable) transactions, which means they even break the unlinkability. Very sloppy. Yes he is correct that it breaks scalability which is one of Monero's issues. I have solved this issue also!
Again another hint was the white paper written by Vitalik about an abstract partitioning the network, which is conceptually similar. I as TPTB_need_war posted about that some weeks ago. You can find that post and quote it in this thread so everyone can have the link to that paper. I don't have time to go dig my archives for it. It appears he published that white paper about the same time (maybe a month after) I had discovered this scheme.
Any chance you can give us a link; trawling through your old posts trying to find the one you mean is boring.
I have developed a design that has all the advantages Vitalik describes for private block chains, but on a public block chain.
The scalability white paper he linked to in that article is a more abstract and generalized description of the scalability design I had also invented around the time he published this paper. This is the first time I've seen this research.
Afaics his abstract paper does not deal with some of the intricacies of the economics that have to be solved in order to make the design actually work in the real world. Also he apparently hasn't realized that it is possible to filter out a 51% attack.
Vitalik's sample-and-fallback scheme appears to be well less well defined than mine. His on quick glance appears to be more heuristic, but I need to take more time to study his paper.
I can assure you that my white paper is much simpler to digest. And more direct to the point.