BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: CoinHoarder on November 16, 2015, 06:59:44 pm
-
Why not add coin mixing services inside the wallet along with the gateways and bridges? Everyone benefits from the added fees. The mixers could even be set up to provide added liquidity on the smartasset markets.
Edit: I shamelessly stole this idea from Nxt.. they are integrating coin mixing services in their wallet.
-
we don't need mixers as we got something far more superior: stealth transactions
-
we don't need mixers as we got something far more superior: stealth transactions
First of all, people smarter than me have indicated BTS transactions are subject to heuristics and other analyses techniques even when using stealth addresses and confidential transactions. This is what the Cryptonote camp alleges. They argue ring signatures and stealth addresses, plus confidential transactions provides more privacy.
CT plus stealth addresses is not "more anonymous" than Monero. Mostly the two aren't comparable (both do something the other doesn't), although Monero is arguably somewhat more anonymous, as I will explain.
Privacy/anonymity consists of:
A. unlinkability (can't tell two transactions are to the same recipient): stealth (or just not reusing addresses)
B. untraceability (can't trace paths between tranasctions): ring signatures (or coinjoin, coinswap, though with many complications and hazards, etc.)
C. content privacy (can't see amount being spent): CT (or limited ambiguity of which outputs are change)
Bitshares with CT gives you A and C, but nothing at all for B. Monero gives you A and B, and somewhat C (via ambiguity of change outputs). Monero with ringCT will give A,B, and C, for a comprehensive solution.
Second of all, I meant add mixing services for major coins like Bitcoin and Litecoin similar to the way bridges/gateways work.. integrated into the wallet. Everyone benefits from the fees associated with such as they are destroyed.
Edit: Spellchecker on my phone is a PITA sometimes, plus I elaborated a bit.
-
we don't need mixers as we got something far more superior: stealth transactions
First of all, people smarter than me have indicated BTS transactions are subject to heuristics and other analyses techniques even when using stealth addresses and confidential transactions. This is what the Cryptonote camp alleges. They argue ring signatures and stealth addresses, plus confidential transactions provides more privacy.
Second of all, I meant add mixing services for major coins like Bitcoin and Litecoin similar to the way bridges/gateways work.. integrated into the wallet. Everyone benefits from the fees associated with such as they are destroyed.
Edit: Spellchecker on my phone is a PITA sometimes, plus I elaborated a bit.
1.0 Titan is very different compared with 2.0 true stealth transactions. Only available through the CLI for now: https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/wiki/StealthTransfers
-
we don't need mixers as we got something far more superior: stealth transactions
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/wiki/StealthTransfers
isnt that what this is ?
-
1.0 Titan is very different compared with 2.0 true stealth transactions. Only available through the CLI for now: https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/wiki/StealthTransfers
I realize that, see the quote I edited in.
Additionally, although it would be possible, the main intent of the mixing service is not to make BTS transactions more anonymous. It is to make money off of the transaction fees by providing this services for other blockchains.
-
we don't need mixers as we got something far more superior: stealth transactions
First of all, people smarter than me have indicated BTS transactions are subject to heuristics and other analyses techniques even when using stealth addresses and confidential transactions. This is what the Cryptonote camp alleges. They argue ring signatures and stealth addresses, plus confidential transactions provides more privacy.
CT plus stealth addresses is not "more anonymous" than Monero. Mostly the two aren't comparable (both do something the other doesn't), although Monero is arguably somewhat more anonymous, as I will explain.
Privacy/anonymity consists of:
A. unlinkability (can't tell two transactions are to the same recipient): stealth (or just not reusing addresses)
B. untraceability (can't trace paths between tranasctions): ring signatures (or coinjoin, coinswap, though with many complications and hazards, etc.)
C. content privacy (can't see amount being spent): CT (or limited ambiguity of which outputs are change)
Bitshares with CT gives you A and C, but nothing at all for B. Monero gives you A and B, and somewhat C (via ambiguity of change outputs). Monero with ringCT will give A,B, and C, for a comprehensive solution.
Second of all, I meant add mixing services for major coins like Bitcoin and Litecoin similar to the way bridges/gateways work.. integrated into the wallet. Everyone benefits from the fees associated with such as they are destroyed.
Edit: Spellchecker on my phone is a PITA sometimes, plus I elaborated a bit.
Those smart people, some of whom I've communicated with as well, always say Bitshares isn't decentralized, or it's not secure. Not one of them have ever proven it by successfully attacking the Bitshares network.
In information security you determine risk based on risk assessment. If something is frequently attacked, and the outcome is catastrophic, then it's high risk. Bitshares has been more secure than Bitcoin, it's not frequently attacked, and even if it is attacked it's not catastrophic. It's safe to say that in practice DPOS and even Bitshares 2.0 is secure.
Practical security means it's secure as proven by usage. Theoretically secure is something else but again Bitcoin itself isn't theoretically secure but it is practically secure. Practical security is what matters, not the various theories on next to impossible to execute attacks.
Next time someone says Bitshares 2.0 is insecure, tell them to prove it. Tell them to attack Bitshares with everything they have and show how insecure it really is. If they cannot produce a demonstration then you can disregard their theories which have never been executed and probably never will be.
Mixing is not necessary. Bitshares 1.0 might have required mixing because it was vulnerable. Bitshares 2.0 has stealth transactions and confidential transactions. It's as secure as you need it to be but it's secure through the Cli wallet and not the GUI. So instead of asking for mixing, you should just create a GUI for the functionality Bitshares 2.0 already has, that Bitcoin hopes to have but that Bitshares 2.0 beat them to market on.
Don't get me wrong, there are still ways to track, but it's not as easy as Bitcoin. Bitshares 2.0 is in my opinion at this point in time and with this market cap, sufficiently private. It could improve when the market cap brings us to a point where it becomes a bigger concern, but when your market cap is less than 10 million I highly doubt development resources could best be invested in that way at this time.
-
Meh.. you guys are derailing the thread. A security/anonymity debate was not the intended purpose. The purpose was to add a feature that would make the Bitshares DAC more profitable.
-
we don't need mixers as we got something far more superior: stealth transactions
First of all, people smarter than me have indicated BTS transactions are subject to heuristics and other analyses techniques even when using stealth addresses and confidential transactions. This is what the Cryptonote camp alleges. They argue ring signatures and stealth addresses, plus confidential transactions provides more privacy.
CT plus stealth addresses is not "more anonymous" than Monero. Mostly the two aren't comparable (both do something the other doesn't), although Monero is arguably somewhat more anonymous, as I will explain.
Privacy/anonymity consists of:
A. unlinkability (can't tell two transactions are to the same recipient): stealth (or just not reusing addresses)
B. untraceability (can't trace paths between tranasctions): ring signatures (or coinjoin, coinswap, though with many complications and hazards, etc.)
C. content privacy (can't see amount being spent): CT (or limited ambiguity of which outputs are change)
Bitshares with CT gives you A and C, but nothing at all for B. Monero gives you A and B, and somewhat C (via ambiguity of change outputs). Monero with ringCT will give A,B, and C, for a comprehensive solution.
Second of all, I meant add mixing services for major coins like Bitcoin and Litecoin similar to the way bridges/gateways work.. integrated into the wallet. Everyone benefits from the fees associated with such as they are destroyed.
Edit: Spellchecker on my phone is a PITA sometimes, plus I elaborated a bit.
This post is a bit more clear. For the gateways into and out of BTC then you have a logical point to make that perhaps mixing could be important but I don't think you need to do all that.
A proxy service to mask the IP address is all you would need.
-
Meh.. you guys are derailing the thread. A security/anonymity debate was not the intended purpose. The purpose was to add a feature that would make the Bits hares DC more profitable.
IP addresses being exposed are a legitimate privacy risk.
-
I still feel like you don't understand what I am saying. This has nothing to do with privacy for gateways, bridges, or Bitshares.
I am proposing Bitshares offer a mixing service for Bitcoin (and possibly other larger alt coins.) This will increase liquidity of Bitshares, and generate transaction/trading fees which will in turn make the DAC more profitable by the destruction of those additional fees. I am suggesting this feature be built alongside Gateways and Bridges, but in its own section titled "Mixers," and third parties can offer their mixing services built into the Bitshares wallet.
-
I still feel like you don't understand what I am saying. This has nothing to do with privacy for gateways, bridges, or Bitshares.
I am proposing Bitshares offer a mixing service for Bitcoin (and possibly other larger alt coins.) This will increase liquidity of Bitshares, and generate transaction/trading fees which will in turn make the DAC more profitable by the destruction of those additional fees. I am suggesting this feature be built alongside Gateways and Bridges, but in its own section titled "Mixers," and third parties can offer their mixing services built into the Bitshares wallet.
Controversial feature. It needs more discussion on whether the benefits outweigh potential risks.
I would think to reduce the risks the mixing should take place off of the blockchain for people who really want to do that. I don't see why Bitshares is needed for that purpose in specific.
-
one of the main things i love about bitshares is the lack of digital anonymity, dont get me wrong i respect privacy and even financial privacy,
stealth accounts and transactions are a great concept, but also i think its just super easy to remember your acount name instead of 6 hashes haha
-
one of the main things i love about bitshares is the lack of digital anonymity, dont get me wrong i respect privacy and even financial privacy,
stealth accounts and transactions are a great concept, but also i think its just super easy to remember your acount name instead of 6 hashes haha
It's about CONVENIENCE. If you want to have financial privacy, then you will have to do things that are inconvenient for most people (like using TOR)
Besides stealth transactions we also have blinded transfers which are way more easy to use in the GUI (eventually)
-
I just wanted to say that the OP is correct - bitshares privacy design isn't as complete as Monero's due to exactly the reasons he stated.
-
I just wanted to say that the OP is correct - bitshares privacy design isn't as complete as Monero's due to exactly the reasons he stated.
Sweet, I am glad a gateway operator agrees with me. Honestly, I see the Bitshares community dismissing so many profitable business oppurtunities all the time it is sickening. If Bitshares is truly a company, then it is a poorly ran one. >:(
I still stand behind it because of the tech, but it is frustrating sometimes.
-
Sweet, I am glad a gateway operator agrees with me. Honestly, I see the Bitshares community dismissing so many profitable business oppurtunities all the time it is sickening. If Bitshares is truly a company, then it is a poorly ran one. >:(
I still stand behind it because of the tech, but it is frustrating sometimes.
It's not so much about dismissing opportunities but more about prioritizing. There is not manpower to do everything at once. While I agree that coinmixing service might be profitable feature, I do not think that it should be high priority right now.
-
Sweet, I am glad a gateway operator agrees with me. Honestly, I see the Bitshares community dismissing so many profitable business oppurtunities all the time it is sickening. If Bitshares is truly a company, then it is a poorly ran one. >:(
I still stand behind it because of the tech, but it is frustrating sometimes.
It's not so much about dismissing opportunities but more about prioritizing. There is not manpower to do everything at once. While I agree that coinmixing service might be profitable feature, I do not think that it should be high priority right now.
Yep, at the moment it would be a useless features as we don't even have people to use it. Coinmixing with no volume lol
-
we don't need mixers as we got something far more superior: stealth transactions
Where is it fav ? I can not use it.
-
I just wanted to say that the OP is correct - bitshares privacy design isn't as complete as Monero's due to exactly the reasons he stated.
Sweet, I am glad a gateway operator agrees with me. Honestly, I see the Bitshares community dismissing so many profitable business oppurtunities all the time it is sickening. If Bitshares is truly a company, then it is a poorly ran one. >:(
I still stand behind it because of the tech, but it is frustrating sometimes.
Personally I fail to see why this idea of yours would work, but not to discourage you!
if you truly believe in it, give it a go, and announce at the relevant places. We need an entrepreneurial spirit if we're to succeed.
Good luck!