Proof that I am the real SlimShady (ahem I mean AnonyMint):
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20205.msg266700.html#msg266700Everyone wants a free lunch, but nobody wants to pay for it. Why shouldn't he get lifetime royalties? Its a privatized feature and they put in the money to get it running.
I would agree with your statement if the investor is not receiving a guaranteed monopoly on the feature. Given the threat of competition, the investor would need to adjust the fees accordingly.
But will the investor allow the feature to be open sourced if the investor isn't granted a monopoly?
Someone invited me to offer to implement that feature for Bitshares for $45k. I am not yet clear if they need a programmer or not. If they do, I would consider it probably only as a plan B if my project fails.
You can confirm from AnonyMint's post history on that forum, that account is the same AnonyMint for the account that was closed (per my request) on this site.
Btw, I am unclear if this thread is asking for a programmer to help implement superior on chain anonymity, but I have designed anonymity that is equivalent to RingCT in functionality but is based on the more efficient and compact CCT. I could implement either RingCT or my Zero Knowledge Transactions for $45k.
But at this time I am working on my own coin. But if that flops in January, I would be available for programming work.
If anyone is unfamiliar with who I am, refer to these Bitcoin forum threads:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1284083.msg13264616#msg13264616https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg13267804#msg13267804Daniel remembers me from technical discussions on the Bitcoin forum in 2013.
Generally speaking if my current venture flops, I am interested in well paid programming not limited to just anonymity. But it seems that perhaps this thread about paying the existing core devs to do this work?
Daniel thanks we could get into that then if I am free to work.
I like GUI programming so that is no problem for me assuming the incentives are well aligned.
Can we have infos about Stealth vs RingCT vs ZKT ?
Differences, cons & pros.
Assuming you mean by Stealth what I think you mean Stealth Addresses, which is ECDH exchange so that the payee's address is different on each transaction (but I thought Daniel already implemented that in BTS2.0?), then I explain what the others add to that. Stealth Addresses provides unlinkability but not untraceability. Those two terms are defined in the Cryptonote (CN) white paper.
CN (one-time rings) mixes payer's identities which adds the untraceability.
CT (Blockstream's Confidential Txns) hides the values of the transactions in homeomorphic proof-of-sums and proof-of-positive small values.
CCT is another way of doing CT that appears to be about 10X smaller use of space. Note I have claimed to have eliminated the proof-of-square thus making it even more efficient but my paper is unpublished and thus not vetted yet.
RingCT combines CN and CT.
ZKT is my unpublished paper that combines CN with CCT which I claim was completed before July 15 much earlier than RingCT was invented. So I claimed to be first, but again I chose not to publish because at the time I thought I was reserving it as feature for my coin that I was working on (but since changed my mind on priorities).
I would also suggest considering offering a mixer based on Zerocash because I think that is the holygrail, because it doesn't matter if your IP address is not obfuscated because ZC (not Zerocoin) hides everything. Theoretically all the other anonymity paradigms can be unmasked by correlating IP addresses. That doesn't mean the others are useless, just not as 100% certain as Zerocash. Zerocash has some issues and I made some suggestions on how to overcome them:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1290263.msg13269624#msg13269624Hope that helps you all in your decision process.