63 replies - 4366 views - 1 thanks - 0 tippers - 11 watchers
Monero with optional privacy (frame it as optional transparency, if you prefer) is just zcash.
The reason that Monero works as a privacy coin while zcash fails is that zcash made deliberate design decisions that erode fungibility between "private" and "transparent" coins. Monero, with view-keys, is making that same decision, just without the deliberation.
Addendum: Suggestions for coins with mandatory privacy?
if they wanted the could've 'forced' us to make transcations with view key for all of moneros view key existance (which is years).
they never did it though
yeah, they just made it literally illegal to use and delisted it everywhere. They would never try to control xmr by any other means. Nevermind that view-keys were broken, which is why they needed a new implimentation.
They will have to compete with all the decentralised options that we already have and more that are being developed.
The only functional dex I know of is retoswap. I guess you could use bisq but then you can only get btc.
This is just old FUD that has resurfaced to try and suppress monero's recent popularity.
This statement is proof that you're retarded.
Learn to code and start a new coin retard. Retarded views shouldn't dictate Monero.
Monero with optional privacy (frame it as optional transparency, if you prefer) is just zcash.
Monero has optional privacy right now, whether you understand it or not. Any system which relies on cryptography to hide information has optional privacy, dependent on whether those cryptographic secrets are revealed or not. The big difference between Monero and Zcash is this: Monero is private by default, and being private versus non-private on Monero incurs the same costs at the protocol level. By contrast, Zcash directly incentivizes people to not be private by way of shield transactions having higher fees than transparent transactions. It also indirectly incentivizes people to not be private by generally having developer support for the private alternatives be harder to implement. That's what the discussion should be around: defaults and paths of least resistance. So no, the ability to send someone private key material does not make Monero the same as Zcash...
If CEX's tried that with IVK then it would be trivially easy to smugle non complaint funds into and out of their 'transparent pool' without causing an immediete anomaly (by matching utxo sizes).
In this dystopian, centralized hypothetical scenario where everyone compiles with all wallet information requests, against their own best interests, do you really think that the omniscient CEX is just gonna forget the key image proofs exist, and not ask users for them?
As soon as it becomes the default (or legally mandated) to transact with your view-key, the default is transparent and the option is privacy. You're just too myopic to see that inevitability.
@bulletbill22 Why would this dystopian government not just simply ban Monero and move people into an easier-to-surveil coin? This seems 10x easier for everyone involved
can u help me learn how tht works
If that's your best English, I doubt I can help u lrn NEthing
Why would this dystopian government not just simply ban Monero and move people into an easier-to-surveil coin? This seems 10x easier for everyone involved
They can and they do. XMR is illegal in much of the EU, China, and Russia(? I think). That's why its not listed on any CEXs; its impossible to trade it legally because governments require disclosures that (for now) are impossible with XMR accounts. However, governments are aware that dissidents will always find a way. As Lenin said "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Put another way, it may be easier to control XMR (or whatever dissidents use to transact) than to incessently stamp put whatever coins or means evolve to replace them when they become unsuitable for transacting (e.g. via law). They've opted to make it de facto illegal for now, but when XMR reaches a stage of acceptance that it cannot continue to be ignored, it would be preferable for them to control it. I'll also note that its not a simple task to just move people onto altcoins. As you can see from the resistance in this thread, some people's identities get tied up with their coin of choice; the mere suggestion that it has a vulnerability provokes an emotional bluepill response and a steadfast refusal to change.
And OVKs existing as an option changes this situation how exactly? Note that the ability to prove incoming enotes, and the locations where they were spent already exists today, dependent on whether the user reveals certain cryptographic secrets.
