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.
Topic: Bridges, Gateways, and... Mixers (Read 3779 times)
