Re: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency
Quote
Thanks guys, that's better than i thought it was.
"It doesn't prove you sent the amount, but it does prove that amount was sent (and received). Luigi Oct 3 at 18:46"
So i guess it doesn't show the address it came from just that the amount was sent from someone to the address? The easy solution would be to generate a new address for each transaction.
Not as easy as having a public blockchain anyone could quickly verify but a good solution nonetheless.
I'll ask my other questions when i have more time. Thanks again.
You're welcome and that's correct.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg16728080#msg16728080
luigi forgot that it's easy for the sender to prove the address by signing a messase using the private spend key that matches with the public spend key associated with the address. It's really the same as during arbitration people sign messages with their private key to prove the validity of certain screenshots or emails
If the sender doesn't, one can assume he didn't send the coins.
That doesn't exactly help you very much.
The idea of a transparent blockchain is to deter such conflicts in the first place since any party making a claim to have altered the blockchain state will have that claim arbitrated on by the entire userbase, not just by me.
Therefore, Poloniex can make any claim they like as to what state change they've made and that claim is instantly testable, not just by keyholders but by non keyholders also. Furthermore, that applies not only to the positive case but the negative (absence of state change) case as well - no 'assumptions' needed.
Encrypted blockchains are designed to keep everyone else out of the loop except the sender and receiver. Thats what makes them ok as an encrypted messaging system but valueless as a monetary asset in their own right (an unbacked one at least) since bearer tokens don't distinguish ownership from possession. The encryption is therefore redundant and only serves to obscure (and potentially corrupt) their authenticity as you've already illustrated by demonstrating that the co-operation of 3rd parties (keyholders) is required to fully verify that a claimed state change did in fact occur.
Yes, the encryption ensures the privacy. Your bank account isn't viewable by everyone in the world, isn't it?
You don't know how much gold is in my vault either. When I open my vault, I can publicly disclose how much I own. But I rather not have a vault made out of glass. The whole world doesn't need to know how much gold I own for the gold to be 'real money'.
your whole explanation about transparent outputs is just a convoluted way to justify the fact that DASH isn't private by default
You can force your counterparty to disclose his prove that he has sent the money.
Nice. A Cryptocurrency who's blockchain state can only be verified through recourse to third parties.
Good luck with that
So easy to ask counterparty when you are buying drugs with an anonymous dealer on DN
Anyway the interesting in the image is : "NOBODY IS USING IT! (ndlr: xmr).
/OffTopic
My point is that if there is a dispute between someone buying drugs with BTC/DASH or XMR, the result will be the same: either the sender/receiver cooperates and discloses the transaction or he doesn't. You need to trust the arbitrator/platform in both cases.
The big difference however is that, even when you need to disclose certain things about your transaction, the history of your wallet will still be protected*.
* at least when the sender proves he has sent the coins.
If a receiver discloses his viewkey, that can be an issue. Hence, it'll be solved soon with disposable addresses.