Quote from: CoinHoarder on February 05, 2016, 07:15:26 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 05, 2016, 05:26:03 PM

One last time, before you go on permanent ignore...

Quote from: CoinHoarder on February 05, 2016, 03:52:57 PM

Ignore me instead of admitting you are wrong about the viewkey. Or, maybe you are too stupid to realize you are wrong. Either way, you will find out eventually and feel like an idiot. The CEO of electric coin company stated there would be a view key in his AMA... an AMA in which you participated. Maybe you should practice reading comprehension.

You don't understand that Zook (the CEO) explained to me at his AMA that there is no viewkey:

Quote from: https://forum.bitcoin.com/post16237.html#p16261

In Zcash, the creator of each individual transaction gets complete control over who can view the contents of the transaction. This is accomplished by each transaction being individually encrypted by an encryption key known only to the creator and the recipient.

There is no other mechanism by which any party can gain the ability to view the contents of transactions other than getting the decryption key from the creator or the recipient of the transaction, or from someone else who has previously received the decryption key. This is a simple, implementable, secure, and understandable mechanism for controlling who can see what. We call it "selective transparency".

Does that answer your question?

You are either an idiot that lacks reading comprehension, or you areally bacracking in an atempt to avoid admitting that you were wrong by alluding that you were talking about a global viewkey (or backdoor.)

He clearly states several times that there is a view key per transaction, but not a global view key or back door. So I don't know why you keep saying therw is no viewkey, because there very clearly is.

If you really were using the term viewkey, as in them including a backdoor, then they have stated multiple times there will be none (and is a misuse of the word viewkey by the way and no one would know what exactly you were or are referencing.)

You are an even bigger idiot for suggesting they include a backdoor, effectively dealing a death blow to their company before it even gets started. For someone with as much business acumen as you claim, you are showing no to little business sense.

I know you will claim that the government will shut it down if they don't include a back door, but luckily not everyone is as willing to bend over for the government like you. It is fine if you want to be a pansy and give into the government's violations of human rights, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

A payer's decryption key which compromises the recipient (because the power to reveal the recipient also rests with the payer) is not a viewkey in the sense of Cryptonote's correct implementation of viewkey. Either one or the other should be able to reveal, but not both because otherwise the implication is that no payer and no payee is ever in control of their viewings. Perhaps more importantly, it is not clear if the Zcash decryption key provides sufficient (or too much) information, because note with the Cryptonote viewkey all payments to that same address can be linked. It is possible that Zcash already implements a viewkey correctly and Zooko's articulation is misleading. That is why I emphasized they need a viewkey. Perhaps a per-transaction viewkey is sufficient and also provides more resistance against tyranny than a global viewkey or Cryptonote's viewkey with links multiple transactions. But I am not omniscient so I have mentioned both variants. Frankly I haven't yet had a spare moment to think about how Zcash's decryption key relates to Cryptonote's viewkey and the implications of the differences. That is why I have kept my statements general that they need a viewkey, what ever that ends up being contingent on full analysis of the implications.

But its quite understandable why a n00b like you would not recognize the distinction without being told so and would instead sling his character assassination mud all over the thread. I didn't start this animosity. You did. And you refuse to stop even after I tried to be cordial with you. Enjoy your Dunning-Kruger self-fucking fest.