Author Topic: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added  (Read 4612 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #60 on: June 11, 2016, 06:44:30 am »
[member=18133]arhag[/member] Would Stealth benefit from the use of Schnorr Signatures in any way?
Anyone think this route would be better than going with CN, CT, CCT, ZKT, etc?

A Schnorr signature by itself doesn't get you any privacy benefits that a ring signature (or Zerocash's complicated zkSNARKs) would give you. It is just another way to do signatures as an alternative to the ECDSA that is currently used in BitShares (and Bitcoin and most other altcoins). Now I do think a Schnorr signature is better (for example it very nicely allows for arbitrarily large efficient threshold signatures). And I would very much love to see BitShares eventually use EdDSA. But that is sort of unrelated to the topic at hand.

Did you say you had a cryptography guy helping you with this process? Because if you want to build something that goes beyond simply implementing a GUI for the existing blinded transfer feature, then that is really important.

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #61 on: June 11, 2016, 07:17:58 am »
regarding sidechain, I feel  what you said is that we haven't found a secure solution for that, but not "we should not add".

sidechain will help a lot, assuming it is robust/secure enough,  it can make the inter chain value transfer more convenient. and then will be no need to have various kind of  BTCs and ETHs in DEX.

Ethereum now have the BTCrelay, we also need similar feature.

we do not have to set BTC and ETH also collateral, if it is not risk free.

maybe we haven't got an acceptable solution for this, but we need to find such a solution
Email´╝Ü[email protected]

Offline kenCode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2230
    • View Profile
    • Agorise
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #62 on: June 11, 2016, 08:10:36 am »
[member=18133]arhag[/member] Would Stealth benefit from the use of Schnorr Signatures in any way?
Anyone think this route would be better than going with CN, CT, CCT, ZKT, etc?

A Schnorr signature by itself doesn't get you any privacy benefits that a ring signature (or Zerocash's complicated zkSNARKs) would give you. It is just another way to do signatures as an alternative to the ECDSA that is currently used in BitShares (and Bitcoin and most other altcoins). Now I do think a Schnorr signature is better (for example it very nicely allows for arbitrarily large efficient threshold signatures). And I would very much love to see BitShares eventually use EdDSA. But that is sort of unrelated to the topic at hand.

Did you say you had a cryptography guy helping you with this process? Because if you want to build something that goes beyond simply implementing a GUI for the existing blinded transfer feature, then that is really important.

Yes, and yes.
For Stealth to be the "killer app" for anon and untrace tho we have to choose the right components here, think about the nsa and other orgs that may hate this kind of technology, those are the things I want to solve, or at least as close as what avail tech has to offer.
kenCode - Decentraliser @ Agorise
Telegram: https://t.me/Agorise - Github: https://github.com/Agorise

tarantulaz

  • Guest
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #63 on: June 11, 2016, 05:34:06 pm »
regarding sidechain, I feel  what you said is that we haven't found a secure solution for that, but not "we should not add".

sidechain will help a lot, assuming it is robust/secure enough,  it can make the inter chain value transfer more convenient. and then will be no need to have various kind of  BTCs and ETHs in DEX.

Ethereum now have the BTCrelay, we also need similar feature.

we do not have to set BTC and ETH also collateral, if it is not risk free.

maybe we haven't got an acceptable solution for this, but we need to find such a solution

I mentioned that in some of my recent comments in this post. I agree that there might be a secure implementation and I made clear that I disagreed with the one currently proposed by BM. However... Regardless of how secure that implementation is, one vulnurability, one bug, and we are done...
I mentioned many times the Multigateway of NXT/SuperNET, but nobody seems to have approached them.

Also, if we build our DEX appropriately and add all the good trading features, think of how many more startups and blockchain companies would like to use BitShares. It doesn't have to be us that will build this really expensive and potentially dangerous feature. You go from the bottom to the top, not the other way round. In the end, Ronny might be able to do the sidechain with his 'DC' or some other company/individual, and earn fees from the FBA.

[member=18133]arhag[/member] Would Stealth benefit from the use of Schnorr Signatures in any way?
Anyone think this route would be better than going with CN, CT, CCT, ZKT, etc?

A Schnorr signature by itself doesn't get you any privacy benefits that a ring signature (or Zerocash's complicated zkSNARKs) would give you. It is just another way to do signatures as an alternative to the ECDSA that is currently used in BitShares (and Bitcoin and most other altcoins). Now I do think a Schnorr signature is better (for example it very nicely allows for arbitrarily large efficient threshold signatures). And I would very much love to see BitShares eventually use EdDSA. But that is sort of unrelated to the topic at hand.

Did you say you had a cryptography guy helping you with this process? Because if you want to build something that goes beyond simply implementing a GUI for the existing blinded transfer feature, then that is really important.

Yes, and yes.
For Stealth to be the "killer app" for anon and untrace tho we have to choose the right components here, think about the nsa and other orgs that may hate this kind of technology, those are the things I want to solve, or at least as close as what avail tech has to offer.

I am still anxiously waiting for the final announcement. I would like some of this things to be included in your announcement.

What will happen in case that the community is against that proposal?
Do you have just one variation or have you got different potential implementations that could be added?
How big is your team of cryptographers and what are some of their previous projects that they were involved in and why did you chose them?
How much is the total cost?
How do you plan to cover the GUI costs?
Why do you think that optional privacy is any good at all? It has been pointed out many times by many, that not having the whole chain private is really bad for the privacy of those who try to stay private. http://weuse.cash/2016/06/09/btc-xmr-zcash/ this is a very good article that explains everything.
Will on chain backups be necessary in order to make sure?
Who is going to be the escrow in the asset sale?
How will ensure that nothing is going to go wrong and in case something does go wrong what are you going to do? What are you going to do if the chain is denonymised? Who is going to fund the development to fix it?

By the way what is the IPFS that you keep mentioning?

Offline kenCode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2230
    • View Profile
    • Agorise
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #64 on: June 11, 2016, 05:43:40 pm »
Great questions, those and many more will be answered in time once we get the details hammered down, job descrip and milestones defined.
kenCode - Decentraliser @ Agorise
Telegram: https://t.me/Agorise - Github: https://github.com/Agorise

Offline Chris4210

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
  • Keep Building!
    • View Profile
    • www.payger.com
  • BitShares: chris4210
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #65 on: June 12, 2016, 11:13:47 am »
That is an inspiring discussion and many great idears are poping up! Short note from my side.

Quote
We are talking with a couple of retails chains (+40,000 supermarkets) and they are very concert about the data security, ownership and transparency. The are looking for a cheaper and faster payment rail network. BitShares with their DEX could be a good option for them. However lets say we have MC Donalds and BurgerKing on the Platform, both companies want to keep their daily transactions cloacked. Nobody wants to be analyized by their direct competitors! One option would be permission and permission less ledgers, but since BitShares is a open payment network stealth transactions are elematary for our future growth.

With stealth in place we can do both. Show all transaction in public or hide certain transactions.

Talking about the future roadmap:

In my effort to desing the new BitShares.org website I also saved most of the future features that we would like to see at BitShares. Please check here. I am talking with some graphic guys to get the design for the site down.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Xw4o-99EXCPg301mzE6CCm6XOOHGqVVfpeQiWilZkXM/edit

Roadmap items on the bottom. I plan to add them all on the new website.
Vote Chris4210 for Committee Member http://bit.ly/1WKC03B! | www.Payger.com - Payments + Messenger | www.BitShareshub.io - Community based fanpage for the BitShares Blockchain