BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: gn1 on June 26, 2016, 08:58:20 am
-
I was watching this YouTube video below from Dash Detailed, and the host, Amanda, said that in Dash, a person can send payment to usernames, but each new payment will land in a separate address, maintaining the user's privacy. (see 01:41 - 02:00)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAyoXtx3wxQ
If Dash can do this easily on protocol level, why can't BitShares replicate it so easily? I see that Stealth function is being built for some time now, but it's not out yet. How come we are struggling at this point, when BitShares came up with the "working DAC" (not DAO!) quicker than anybody else?
Can't we simply study from Dash's protocol, replicate their ideas onto Stealth? I'm not a programmer, but still, I am not sure why BitShares is struggling to launch Stealth in a timely manner.
-
In fact, BitShares 1 had exactly this behavior. We called it TITAN (Transfer invisibly to any name).
We killed it because of scalability and because it makes it difficult to verify that a payment has been sent without compromising private keys.
The newly introduced and widely discussed STEALTH for BitShares also makes use of this feature but it makes recovering access to funds after loss of keys and malfunctioning hardware very difficult.
Our devs decided to not run for it until we have figured out a SAFE way to ensure no one can lose funds.
Not sure how DASH devs deal with their people's money, but we learned our lesses from TITAN the hard way.
-
Another important reason why BitShares-2 doesn't do that anymore is that it provided a false sense of security. It was possible to correlate addresses belonging to a single account, by analysing transaction metadata.
-
Dear Xeroc,
Thank you for your reply.
Our devs decided to not run for it until we have figured out a SAFE way to ensure no one can lose funds.
Not sure how DASH devs deal with their people's money, but we learned our lesses from TITAN the hard way.
Well, but if a BitShares programmer who can analyze and understand codes look into how other crypto devs are dealing with the same thing, I thought BitShares can come up with a even better and a safer way. At least, that's how I look at things. BitShares DAC is awesome, so why stop here?
Dear pc,
Thank you for your reply.
Another important reason why BitShares-2 doesn't do that anymore is that it provided a false sense of security. It was possible to correlate addresses belonging to a single account, by analysing transaction metadata.
Are you saying sending payment to a single username in Dash has no privacy, can all be tracked easily? If so, Dash is spreading misleading information to the public.
-
Are you saying sending payment to a single username in Dash has no privacy, can all be tracked easily? If so, Dash is spreading misleading information to the public.
They are spreading misleading information and I wouldn't recommend dash. Monero is the best one at them moment. In 1-2 years Monero will be completely anonymous.
-
Are you saying sending payment to a single username in Dash has no privacy, can all be tracked easily? If so, Dash is spreading misleading information to the public.
That's not what I said. I don't know much about Dash, therefore I wouldn't make such a statement.
I said in the old BitShares, transactions could be correlated using metadata, like voting slates etc.
-
Let me go back to the original question.
If BitShares had that exact function during BitShares 1.0, but had to kill the function due to scalability issues, why is Dash able to keep the same function without experiencing scalability issues? What makes them different from BitShares? Are they just not seeing the scalability issue ahead, or did they overcome it somehow?
-
If BitShares had that exact function during BitShares 1.0, but had to kill the function due to scalability issues, why is Dash able to keep the same function without experiencing scalability issues? What makes them different from BitShares? Are they just not seeing the scalability issue ahead, or did they overcome it somehow?
In essence it breaks down to this:
https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/08/lessons-learned-from-bitshares-0.x/#assign-ids-rather-than-using-uuids
Dash hasn't through about this because they are based on addresses while BitShares is based on ids. That allows a totally different level of scalability.
-
If BitShares had that exact function during BitShares 1.0, but had to kill the function due to scalability issues, why is Dash able to keep the same function without experiencing scalability issues? What makes them different from BitShares? Are they just not seeing the scalability issue ahead, or did they overcome it somehow?
In essence it breaks down to this:
https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/08/lessons-learned-from-bitshares-0.x/#assign-ids-rather-than-using-uuids
Dash hasn't through about this because they are based on addresses while BitShares is based on ids. That allows a totally different level of scalability.
is this because of the size of the address compared to an ID? what makes ID's more scalable precisely?
-
is this because of the size of the address compared to an ID? what makes ID's more scalable precisely?
.. because you don't need to compute hashes anymore just to figure out where the funds go to. In fact, you don't need to derive a hash of a public key ANYWHERE in bitshares!