Quote from: mindrust on Today at 05:57:28 PM

Quote from: Kruw on Today at 05:39:45 PM

Quote from: mindrust on Today at 05:36:17 PM

I don't have a node. What now? Setup your own and show us?

Stop shitposting.

https://litecoin.com/en/news/the-litecoin-mimblewimble-extension-block-proposal-has-been-published

Quote

MW will offer pseudo privacy as before this history gets deleted those monitoring the network will be able to store the chain state, meaning even if values are hidden it is still possible to track user activity and interactions, so while yes, this will help with fungibility it is by no means perfect.

https://medium.com/dragonfly-research/breaking-mimblewimble-privacy-model-84bcd67bfe52

Quote

TL;DR: Mimblewimble’s privacy is fundamentally flawed. Using only $60/week of AWS spend, I was able to uncover the exact addresses of senders and recipients for 96% Grin transactions in real time.

Grin Devs Respond: Mimblewimble Privacy Isn’t 'Fundamentally Flawed'

Quote

“We have to assume that the author conveniently confused transaction outputs (TXOs) with addresses, but these are not the same. And, as we’ve already detailed, the fact that TXOs can be linked is hardly news.”

Lehnberg’s critique of Bogatyy’s claims continues to address several further points, with his central line of argument — details aside — resting on the statement that:

“The Grin team has consistently acknowledged that Grin’s privacy is far from perfect. While transaction linkability is a limitation that we’re looking to mitigate as part of our goal of ever-improving privacy, it does not ‘break’ Mimblewimble nor is it anywhere close to being so fundamental as to render it or Grin’s privacy features useless.”

Exactly, David Burkett implemented MW on Litecoin and came to the same conclusion about the weaknesses of MW privacy: https://twitter.com/DavidBurkett38/status/1780758039567446290