Author Topic: Does BTS suffer from the same Ethereum paradox or does stealth conquer it?  (Read 1634 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline roadscape

Depending on how blind balances/transfers were implemented, this would be pretty easy to do with external (3rd party) orderbooks while keeping the act of exchanging the assets private & trust-free. Practically speaking, probably the biggest whale would be the one hosting/securing the orderbook. The trades could be initiated on an external server using proposed transactions. And there would still be a public orderbook for the less privileged. :)  |  witness: roadscape

Offline -banano-

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
Somebody please answer if the stealth feature of BTS can be used to obfuscate smart contracts or if it can only be used for transfers and blind balances:

from the article at:

"Yet another major issue with Turing completeness is, perhaps ironically, their transparency implications.

As part of the requirements to evaluate a Turing-complete contract, the code to that contract must be publicly available. In Turing-complete blockchains, this code is presented at the time that its participants engage in an agreement.

While transparency can often be an advantage to some value-transfer propositions, the problems associated with broadcasting everyone's position are fairly obvious. Most financial contracts require that information be asymmetrically held between the involved parties, so that uninvolved traders cannot trade advantageously on these agreements.

Should a major bank be found taking a position in the market (say a futures contract), the risk to that institution is that the market can publicly trade on, and determine the future of that bank before the contract has executed. Though there are some theoretical fixes to the problems of disclosure, these solutions will be a long time coming, and may never arrive at all."

I suspect that the answere to this question is that yes, it is possible to take a smart contract position with a known amount from an unknown or "blinded" balance.

But no, the contract amount on the DEX cannot ever be invisible to the users of the blockchain.

Am I correct in this assumption?