@Thom - valid points.. but depending on how deep into the rabbit hole you want to go, some of those fears could be misguided. Stealth could be detrimental to a free society in the long run, and could attract unwanted attention in the medium term.. nobody really knows.. just saying that NOT having stealth has value too.
As bm mentioned, current implement of STEALTH transfer is lack of unlinkability as well as untraceability. So it's just like TITAN in bts 0.x (although in 2.0 it does more than TITAN by hiding the amount of transfer), which just let people feel like that their have privacy, but their don't really have. It's dangerous to encourage people to use such non-perfect feature. Personally I don't like to use it nor recommend to other people.
Yes, this is a very good point, and possibly the core of my concern: no true privacy exists (on the internet), and what little does exist, is complex, imperfect, and expensive.
I'm a little late to this discussion, but I've been thinking it over and have some questions..
Why do we need stealth when you can just create and claim into an anonymous account?
Stealth funds need to go back into a visible account to be tradeable anyway.
And the people who really want to spy you have *plenty* of other ways to find out what you're doing.
This has a higher priority than say, MAKER, only because the cash is on the table, right? If we put up more bids/depth on the MAKER market than the STEALTH market, would that be enough for CNX to reconsider priorities? If MAKER had just 13M BTS in bids, that's $45k right there.
With STEALTH BitUSD you could conduct business for weeks/months privately and only need to do the rare conversion which wouldn't necessarily have to go through a payment processor or major exchange so that combo would be profitable for BTS. (This a major benefit over using volatile crypto-currency for business which needs to be traded regularly/often simultaneously for fiat in the process making privacy very hard to achieve.)
Without more liquid BitAssets though, or other popular sell-able product first, there will be little demand for STEALTH but as Xeroc says the funding/development of some of those products via FBA's may benefit from/require privacy.
I don't think BTS will really increase in value though until BitAsset liquidity or one of those more sell-able products are developed.
Interesting.. could actual businesses use stealth and remain compliant?
Also, would stealth USD be worth more than plain USD? It seems like whoever creates stealth balances from a known account takes on some amount of risk which they could pass off as a premium.. For instance, if Blocktrades or Metaexchange could convert BTC to STEALTH-USD, I wonder how much of a premium they could get away with..
Why do we need stealth when you can just create and claim into an anonymous account?
Stealth funds need to go back into a visible account to be tradeable anyway.
And the people who really want to spy you have *plenty* of other ways to find out what you're doing.
But hing the amount and not showing involved parties at all is considered WAY
better privacy.
This has a higher priority than say, MAKER, only because the cash is on the
table, right? If we put up more bids/depth on the MAKER market than the STEALTH
market, would that be enough for CNX to reconsider priorities? If MAKER had just
13M BTS in bids, that's $45k right there.
Great observation.
What the MAKER speculators may not know is that the STEALTH proposal is VERY
VERY important for the Fee Backed Asset idea. even though they are independent
proposals (BSIP7 and BSIP8), creating and issuing a FBA under a STEALTH/PRIVATE
account is very important for regulatory reasons!!!
Otherwise people that want to innovate and have t funded via FBA might run into
legal trouble quickly. Read BSIP7 for more details about it.
Finally, on an ideological note: we've never seen a true global free market, and
we have no idea where it will lead society. It could be really good, it could be
really bad. I posit that stealth is only desirable because of
short-term/reactionary fear. And when people act out of fear they make
bad (I mean truly horrible) decisions.
The Stealth proposal is not only about hiding funds or transfers or privacy. It
is also about making sure not to run into regulatory issues and let more
innovations enter the system more easily.
Aah... good point., I forgot that this was sort of a prerequisite for some FBA's. BSIP7 is helpful, thanks. I now understand that even if MAKER doesn't depend on STEALTH, there might be other important/interesting FBA's which could only be released in a 'counterparty-free setting'.
Topic: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000) (Read 75671 times)
