https://steemit.com/bitshares/@tarantulaz/why-i-think-stealth-backups-and-sidechains-shouldnt-be-added-in-bitshares
I don't do clickbait. Could you copy and paste the content?
Apologies for that. It wasn't my intention to make people click there in order to gain something. I just wanted to give my opinion.
Instead of witnesses, any group of trusted personalities or companies could form a similar decentralized escrow business that would be better than a lone exchange if not quite as good as an unmanned service...
In fact, if all the businesses that are building on BitShares were to agree to add their reputations to the mix, it might be ideal.
Better yet, if we elected the Top 15 Most Trusted Businesses in the ecosystem to each run a sidechain interface node wouldn't that solve all issues?
Yeah sure, but those businesses could make it themselves or a side project could do it with their funds. It should be 100% Fee backed and BitShares should hold no responsibility. And in the unluckily scenario where BitShares fails, it has to be up to the companies to help their customers. I want sidechains. I was really into them for a while and I was blindly listening to BM in the hangouts saying that DPoS is the best for this. But then I realized that the potential dangers are quite high in the initial way they were proposed. If we wanted to fund them through the blockchain, it would take more than 6 months to fund the project, without guaranteed results.
I maintain that having no privacy on the blockchain at this stage is a massive blunder.
If stealth is fundamentally broken, then that's an ever bigger blunder.
Almost nobody interested in crypto will want a completely transparent blockchain. At least based on my experience around such communities.
Also, for 99.999% of our potential users, Tor is a no-go: the light client has no proxying support, and the default Tor browser configuration runs in private/incognito mode, so localstorage isn't available, so the wallet throws an error while starting up.
Besides, as discussed in another thread some days ago, the wss endpoint can correlate accounts to a wallet, even worse to all your wallets, since the connection the client establishes to the server isn't closed when switching wallet.
Mind elaborating on the issues with Dash? What is wrong with DarkSend (or whatever they've rebranded it to these days)
Sure. I agree that TOR is hard, but people who want to protect their finances should learn how to use it well regardless and we have to make it easier with BitShares. Having Stealth but no support for TOR is a joke...
Even people within Dash know that Darksend isn't 100% secure. It is a new technology and you never know when someone will be able to break into it. Imagine thinking that you are anonymous and then one day waking up, 5 years later and you realize that all your transactions have been denonymized. Not all people need temporary privacy or anonymity. This is serious stuff where lives might be in danger after such 'revelations'. It isn't just investors trying to hide money like it probably will be in BitShares. Again, there is little privacy, privacy and total privacy-anonymity. If I had to chose the first one, I'd rather not have it at all.
So far there has been nobody within the Dash community trying to break Darksend and that is very worrying. What if someone outside the community manages to do it first? They are trying to improve it though, however that means that there might currently be something wrong with it.
Also at the moment they offer no good obfuscation of IP and many people, including myself, were complaining about this. Mixing was taking hours first and then they added people who get paid to offer liquidity. What are the problems with this :
Let's say CoinJoin offers quite good privacy. There are the following problems :
1) Only the destinations are mixed up, not the amounts. So someone can track back who sent what with some good analysis.
2) By not protecting your IP, especially when your mixes take hours, someone could easily find out who you are.
3) We don't know how many Masternodes are not compromised/control/owned by adversaries. It is currently assumed that only a small portions of the nodes is malicious.
4) When people offer just liquidity, an attacker can easily see who they are as their funds are probably going from CoinJoin to CoinJoin, while the rest of the participants might spend their coins somewhere.
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/interesting-criticisms-of-dash-thoughts.8358/page-2https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2zufu1/a_great_podcast_by_lets_talk_bitcoin_discussing/
Probably a better idea than top 15 witnesses given the temptation for thieves to exploit the current voter apathy and low market cap of BitShares in order to steal potentially large BTC or ETH reserves.
It is worth noting that from a technology perspective, the code that would need to be written to allow that approach of a sidechain (where I assume changes to the multisig group would be a manual process) is probably roughly 80% of the effort needed to build a sidechain system run by the dynamic set of witnesses.
It is hard indeed and that's why I think there is no need for this. Great feature, but some exchanges could see our potential and do the sidechains when we have managed to establish our DEX. By the way
@arhag what do you think of the witnesses being able to do CoinJoins like Dash's masternodes?