0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Bump... and excitedhttps://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/commit/be65c277c96b96cfa6e31773cce9805d3d51be87
I posed this same question to Feathercoin/Pete in 2013. Back me up @mirrax
I just wanted to point out that perfect privacy is not this. Perfect privacy would be a transaction which never hit the blockchain, but this is an unsolved problem (due to double spend), as far as I know.
No logging of private information. Be able to go back in 'chat-history'.These two things are mutually exclusive. For example, I know you frequent /r/communism /r/socialism /r/occupywallstreet and more. If i wanted to read through all of your posts, I could determine other details about you. Did you know it only takes 7 timestamped references to the weather to geolocate you to a specific city? One of the members of Lulzsec was busted based on the fact that he mentioned he was a freegan in IRC."Ops, espionage*. The Danish term is spionage.." Is Danish." My speedometer won't go +15mph, but it moves. How can that be? " has a dual sport. Honda XL600RYou see now why this is a bad idea? I'm just going to stop there.Also, they would look at the date that the old one stopped posting and the new one started posting. Also, even though you may not keep logs, and even if the traffic is encrypted, if they can MITM like the government, they can watch for your upstream traffic and use it's time stamp to determine what you've posted. So, let's say the Danish government decides they don't like what this new wave extremist honda xl600r rider is posting. All they have to do is run the internet backbone through wireshark, filter out all IPs of people who don't have dual sports, watch for the one who connects to the website, and poof, he disappears.
I am familiar with his digital cash and it is the foundation of our voting architecture.
Quote from: Tuck Fheman on June 22, 2015, 07:31:22 amQuote from: jakub on June 22, 2015, 07:21:05 amThe only case I am aware of where perfect privacy & anonymity existed was the implementation of digital cash in Open Transactions by Chris Odom.Since it looks like in 2.0 we are drifting towards a federation-of-servers architecture (full nodes being maintained on server side and most users limited to light wallets) I am beginning to think that the whole beauty & power of Open Transactions can be gradually implemented in BTS, including digital cash. This would be absolutely amazing if we could pull this trick.I wonder if BM is familiar with the Open Transactions concept and what he thinks of going in this direction in the future.I posed this same question to Feathercoin/Pete in 2013. Back me up @mirrax I am familiar with his digital cash and it is the foundation of our voting architecture.
Quote from: jakub on June 22, 2015, 07:21:05 amThe only case I am aware of where perfect privacy & anonymity existed was the implementation of digital cash in Open Transactions by Chris Odom.Since it looks like in 2.0 we are drifting towards a federation-of-servers architecture (full nodes being maintained on server side and most users limited to light wallets) I am beginning to think that the whole beauty & power of Open Transactions can be gradually implemented in BTS, including digital cash. This would be absolutely amazing if we could pull this trick.I wonder if BM is familiar with the Open Transactions concept and what he thinks of going in this direction in the future.I posed this same question to Feathercoin/Pete in 2013. Back me up @mirrax
The only case I am aware of where perfect privacy & anonymity existed was the implementation of digital cash in Open Transactions by Chris Odom.Since it looks like in 2.0 we are drifting towards a federation-of-servers architecture (full nodes being maintained on server side and most users limited to light wallets) I am beginning to think that the whole beauty & power of Open Transactions can be gradually implemented in BTS, including digital cash. This would be absolutely amazing if we could pull this trick.I wonder if BM is familiar with the Open Transactions concept and what he thinks of going in this direction in the future.
Arhag. I am not going to pretend that I have spent the time to understand why your proposed method is provably fair. With that said, I don't think it would work. We already have a dearth of voting shareholders. I don't think many at all would vote with their private stake if it took so many hoops, and reduced their privacy so much. The only way to be sure that your private balance wasn't being leaked would be to designate your own account as the voting party, and that has obvious repercussions. I know I wouldn't trust it.
I already discussed this elsewhere but I think it is important to allow some semi-trusted third party to claim vote tallies from the blinded BTS balances of some selection of accounts. But it has to be done in a way that prevents the third party from changing the votes (they could only choose to exclude accounts from the vote tally, but not use their stake to vote for someone the stakeholder didn't vote for). So let's say some subset of accounts with blinded BTS balances decide to elect a particular third party to see their BTS balance (by privately sharing the blinding factor with the third party) and aggregate their vote. The third party would specify the account IDs of all the account's vote it will be aggregating. It will also specify a blacklist of delegates/witnesses/workers that it will not aggregate votes for because not enough of the specified accounts are voting for that delegate/witness/worker (which would compromise privacy for the few accounts in the selection that were voting for that delegate/witness/worker). Then for each member in the union of the delegates/witnesses/workers that were included in the votes of the selected accounts, the third party provides a plain-text stake tally and proof that the sum is valid. This proof is a commitment of the tally and a signature proving that fact, where the blinding factor of the commitment is selected so that the sum of commitments of the BTS balances for all accounts voting for the specific delegate/witness/worker (subtracted by the sum of the commitments of the BTS balances for all accounts voting against the specified worker, in the specific case of workers since they can be downvoted) equals the commitment of the tally provided as part of the proof. In other words, for each member X (delegate/witness/worker) add all the blinding factors of accounts approving of X and, if X is a worker, subtract all the blinding factors of accounts disapproving of X to get the blinding factor for the commitment to the tally. This transaction only needs to be provided to the blockchain once per maintenance period to save costs (it is okay if there is even a 1 day delay in incorporating all the votes).
Yes, a list of other proposals and the community voting on which one(s) to implement makes sense.And, I too would also like further clarification regarding "implementing at the protocol level" only. Why not in the gui as well? it'll be useless from a practical standpoint if it does not make it to the gui.
Quote from: starspirit on June 14, 2015, 07:38:49 amIt's not about a whether there is a counterargument or not, its about whether this is the the most important use of funds once 2.0 is launched and there are potentially many competing proposals. I guess the sentiment I was trying to express is that, given the breadth of the recent announcement, you need to allow time now for other proposals to emerge and develop before trying to establish any sort of consensus. Maybe we should even encourage a competition for the first set of proposals, with a bounty prize to the community's top choice.I agree with you. I think.To me it seems as if you accepted my assumptions as valid. And offered the counter argument that we should wait until we have more proposals to decide which is most important. Bravo. I accept your counter argument as true, and await all the proposals we will hopefully see. While I am still really excited by the idea of privacy on the blockchain I am very open to the idea that something more important could come up.I really am attempting to communicate and realize that my style of writing is not always conducive to that. Please forgive me for my writing deficiencies. Writing takes so much longer than thinking or speaking and I often feel as if iI have lost my point by the time I am done.
It's not about a whether there is a counterargument or not, its about whether this is the the most important use of funds once 2.0 is launched and there are potentially many competing proposals. I guess the sentiment I was trying to express is that, given the breadth of the recent announcement, you need to allow time now for other proposals to emerge and develop before trying to establish any sort of consensus. Maybe we should even encourage a competition for the first set of proposals, with a bounty prize to the community's top choice.
I have voting turned off as I realize that's a dead giveaway.
Quote from: bytemaster on June 16, 2015, 02:36:47 pmQuote from: karnal on June 16, 2015, 02:32:53 pmOne thing that has been bothering me: Properly used, TITAN appears to have done the job well.Now, that was unilaterally stripped out, (shareholders were not consulted on the matter) and what is being proposed is moneis to essentially re-implement something we already had.Anybody else sees a potential issue with this ?The titan part isn't what you would be paying for. It is the confidential transactions part. TITAN didn't do the job well.So the thing was/is fully broken? Sending funds between accounts and then from the account to itself several times over days/weeks is not enough to clear the trail?I have voting turned off as I realize that's a dead giveaway.
Quote from: karnal on June 16, 2015, 02:32:53 pmOne thing that has been bothering me: Properly used, TITAN appears to have done the job well.Now, that was unilaterally stripped out, (shareholders were not consulted on the matter) and what is being proposed is moneis to essentially re-implement something we already had.Anybody else sees a potential issue with this ?The titan part isn't what you would be paying for. It is the confidential transactions part. TITAN didn't do the job well.
One thing that has been bothering me: Properly used, TITAN appears to have done the job well.Now, that was unilaterally stripped out, (shareholders were not consulted on the matter) and what is being proposed is moneis to essentially re-implement something we already had.Anybody else sees a potential issue with this ?
You own the network, but who pays for development?
Quote from: sittingduck on June 14, 2015, 01:38:56 pmGUI would require JavaScript implementation of crypto used for blinded trx. I bet that is a lot more work than just using the library produced by blockstream Couldn't emscripten help with that?
GUI would require JavaScript implementation of crypto used for blinded trx. I bet that is a lot more work than just using the library produced by blockstream
What if Cryptonomex's first worker proposal was to implement this at a protocol level (no GUI support) for 2M BTS?
I think trying to make BTS a jack of all trades is a non-starter. Its better to stick to the core areas of strength and build on it.Eventually you will find that there are stuff which can't be implemented on BTS blockchain and we will have to look into a second, separate chain. I can see a market for a perfect stealth crypto and can see it being used as storage; something what BTC was expected to be by the average enthusiast.I think there would be a lot more issues out there which need solving which would be better served to spend 2m BTS on. More informed members will be able to say that, but on top of my head having a smaller blockchain would be a start. I personally would be happier running a full node rather than depending on light wallets.
with the new multisig system wouldn't it be possible to create a general account and them make every fund a user sends, pass through before reaching the destiny? Then automate the timings of each transaction, ie. i want to send 100 bts to user X, i send them to that general account, which would then send 10 bts, then 20 bts, etc to user X. Making everyone's transactions pass through and with TITAN, would it be possible to know the origin of the transactions? However, I think the biggest problem we have is anonymous voting. Once that's figured out, tx will be too. But private transactions with votes being public jeopardizes the network
NT.6.2.14 7. As all the different votes are given secretly (by secret ballot), there is no legal means of knowing, from the votes themselves, who votes for, and who votes against, the Constitution. Therefore, voting affords no legal evidence that any particular individual supports the Constitution. And where there can be no legal evidence that any particular individual supports the Constitution, it cannot legally be said that anybody supports it. It is clearly impossible to have any legal proof of the intentions of large numbers of men, where there can be no legal proof of the intentions of any particular one of them.NT.6.2.15 8. There being no legal proof of any man's intentions, in voting, we can only conjecture them. As a conjecture, it is probable, that a very large proportion of those who vote, do so on this principle, viz., that if, by voting, they could but get the government into their own hands (or that of their friends), and use its powers against their opponents, they would then willingly support the Constitution; but if their opponents are to have the power, and use it against them, then they would not willingly support the Constitution.NT.6.2.16 In short, men’s voluntary support of the Constitution is doubtless, in most cases, wholly contingent upon the question whether, by means of the Constitution, they can make themselves masters, or are to be made slaves.NT.6.2.17 Such contingent consent as that is, in law and reason, no consent at all.NT.6.2.18 9. As everybody who supports the Constitution by voting (if there are any such) does so secretly (by secret ballot), and in a way to avoid all personal responsibility for the acts of his agents or representatives, it cannot legally or reasonably be said that anybody at all supports the Constitution by voting. No man can reasonably or legally be said to do such a thing as assent to, or support, the Constitution, unless he does it openly, and in a way to make himself personally responsible for the acts of his agents, so long as they act within the limits of the power he delegates to them.NT.6.2.19 10. As all voting is secret (by secret ballot), and as all secret governments are necessarily only secret bands of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, the general fact that our government is practically carried on by means of such voting, only proves that there is among us a secret band of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, whose purpose is to rob, enslave, and, so far as necessary to accomplish their purposes, murder, the rest of the people. The simple fact of the existence of such a band does nothing towards proving that “the people of the United States,” or any one of them, voluntarily supports the Constitution.NT.6.2.20 For all the reasons that have now been given, voting furnishes no legal evidence as to who the particular individuals are (if there are any), who voluntarily support the Constitution. It therefore furnishes no legal evidence that anybody supports it voluntarily.
Quote from: jabbajabbaつ◕_◕つ on June 12, 2015, 10:57:50 pmstealth + 5%... sounds goodthis is good haha
stealth + 5%... sounds good
Confidential addresses couldn't vote because no one knows the balance.
Light wallets need out of band notification.