Quote from: GingerAle on January 15, 2016, 04:31:15 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 14, 2016, 10:39:54 PM

Quote from: CoinCube on January 14, 2016, 02:19:13 PM

Afaics, the technical design I have enumerated in the prior post enables society to fight malicious centralization for as long as payers (i.e. the users of the currency, as opposed to professional mining farms which are stuck in one location with a huge capital investment) will move away from servers which are doing the malfeasance. So this makes it much more difficult to regulate because the government hates to make laws that require them to enforce the laws against every decentralized individual because the government knows they can not enforce this. Instead the government always prefers to regulate the centralized nodes in any paradigm, e.g. upcoming regulation forcing all instant messaging and video providers to register global encryption keys with the government (amazing we are sliding into 1984 already!).

So the only way the government can centralize control over my design is to regulate all the protocols of the entire internet to detect and force traffic to not implement my protocol. This is nearly impossible for the government to accomplish, even the world government will have difficulty with this.

I think I have the design we need.

I hope I will receive the support of the community.

If you make the coin actually fungible then you've piqued my interest.

And of course actually fungible means opaque blockchain, and the only actual implementation of complete opacity is Monero.

If you make another traceable asset chain, whats the point?

And I don't got the money, but I'll mine it, which IMO is more important.

Then Monero isn't a solution to anything either because its anonymity is flawed:

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 10, 2016, 10:14:07 AM

Edit: it might be the case that some would argue we don't want to create a crypto design which is resistant to top-down government (society) interference with the protocol, because we want mainstream adoption. For example, the Monero folks might argue that anonymity for businesses hiding data from snooping by competitors. But this logic falls apart because the data obtained by for example the NSA can be leaked or sold because again there are human employees inside these institutions (e.g. Edward Snowden). When the balance between decentralized and centralized power is lost, then the world falls apart and enters a Dark Age. This is not a joke. This has happened before in human history and we are at another very dangerous juncture given the digital landscape has now become ubiquitous.

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 11, 2016, 10:43:05 AM

Quote from: monsterer on January 11, 2016, 10:27:23 AM

Quote from: traumschiff on January 11, 2016, 09:56:32 AM

He is making 100% offtopic accusations that are based on exactly nothing to back them up, nothing even slightly relevant.

He is also one of the most qualified people on this forum to review anonymity solutions, having written his own white paper on the subject, so even a cursory glance is valuable.

evidence: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1284083.msg13211623#msg13211623

Let's hear why this solution is different to Dash's and then we'll take it from there.

Clarification. I didn't release the white paper. But since it is no longer of proprietary value to hide it since I am no longer going to implement Zero Knowledge Transactions, then I will endeavor to clean up the white paper and release it sometime this year. Hopefully I can find time within the next couple of months.

ZKT combines Cryptonote with Mixles' Compact Confidential Transactions. Shen-noether accomplished a similar design but combining with Blockstream's Confidential Transactions.

So these are End-to-End Principled anonymity that hide both sender and value. No simultaneity crap like Dash and this new crap from the infamous plagiarist John Conner.

The reason I am not implementing it because it requires obscuring your IP address and all other metadata, which is impractical. Apparently Monero is implementing it (at least they are toying with implementing it) and so no need for me to duplicate their effort.

Only Zerocash can give us reliable anonymity that is immune to metadata. So for now I put anonymity on the back burner and we will come back to Zerocash if we first solve the SUSTAINABLE, DECENTRALIZED, PERMISSIONLESS block chain issue, since that is more important. No design yet can truly claim those properties.

As for resource issues, reliable anonymity will not be cheap. Thus it probably can't be for every transaction. It will probably need to be an optional set of coins. In Zerocash they name the anonymous set of coins 'zerocoins' (not to be confused with Zerocoin).

My main grip with John Conner is he doesn't put all the technical details in a white paper, because he is apparently wants to avoid peer review. Smooth doesn't have time to reverse engineer his half-assed white papers either. So we can't entirely explain the flaws without wasting a lot of our valuable time. But I can already tell you this chainblender is flawed at least in that it has a simultaneity requirement which thus violates the End-to-End Principle. Looks like there are other flaws similar to the masternode concept of mixing (which Evan of Dash has apparently finally admitted).

But actually permissionless, decentralized block chains insure fungibility to a large extent. It is wrong to equate fungibility with anonymity, although there is some overlap between the two:

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 09, 2016, 12:40:29 PM

Quote from: ArticMine on January 09, 2016, 02:14:19 AM

2) In order to have a permission less system on needs an opaque blockchain where censorship is impossible or at least very expensive.

There are two vectors to accomplish this:

1. Mining is controlled by users, not centralized.

2. Transactions are entirely opaque, which is only accomplished in Zerocash. Cryptonote's anonymity breaks down in theory with chain and meta data analysis by a global snoop such as top-down society (NSA, etc).

Either one of those would probably suffice, but together that afaics would be fabulously permissionless.

And IMO/AFAICS Monero is too much of a baby step to be the one that kills Bitcoin. It doesn't really solve any problems truly.