Imagine Bringing MWEB to Dogecoin for Grin Awareness

1

Litecoin adopted Mimblewimble extension blocks so maybe Dogecoin would too. Seems like their community is large and still growing with new developers actively trying to improve Dogecoin. I tried to convince 3 of their developers that optional anonymity is a human right and Mimblewimble is secure and innovative enough to implement, which is why Litecoin did. I think this would bring more awareness to Grin and influence some people to be more privacy-conscious

1 Like
2

good 。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。

1 Like
3

Both Dogecoin and Litecoin are forks of Bitcoin. Easy enough for the DogeCoin developers to copy the code from Litecoin and implement it in their node and wallet software. The same goes for Bitcoin’s Taproot +Shnorr which is also a sort of Mimble Wimble implementation (not really, but many consider it so), which is copied in Litecoin and can also be copied in Doge with some effort.

Having these large projects around with MW implementations should bring plenty awareness of Mimble Wimble although I doubt it will enlighten the masses of Grin.

It should be noted though that Mimble Wimble is a collective name, meaning implementations in different projects are different with different tradeoffs. Because of these reasons I think the positive effects for Grin will be limited. It take some education to understand the similarities as well as the differences. Although Taproot and Litecoin MW extension blocks are interesting, it is really different from Grin which is much more minimal in its implementation and footprint. Grin is IMO a purer form of MW, taking all the benefits with the added feature (although some call it the biggest downside) of interactivity. Also Grin is much more than just Mimble Wimble. Its fair emission schedule, truly decentralized governance and its efficient true prove of work algorithm make it so much more than a coin with MW implemented. For me it ticks all the boxes of a good crypto projects, but if the masses of crypto users are appreciated these aspects remains to be seen. Tim will tell and time will educate :clock1:.

3 Likes
4

Taproot is more like a new output/tx type, while Mimblewimble is a blockchain format. They’re not really related.

I wouldn’t say it’s a collective name, Jedusor gave this name to a blockchain format that is relatively well explained in the original whitepaper. It’s true that it doesn’t go into many details and leaves a lot of technical decisions to the implementation though.

Indeed, they’re very different. So much so, that I wouldn’t give the same label (MW) to them. Any marketing is good marketing, but I believe we should make an effort in clearly explaining how different these are because if someone showed me the design of some other attempts and told me this is MW, I wouldn’t bother looking at Grin because I’d assume it’s the same thing. It’s good that people are experimenting with new designs and ideas, but speaking for myself, out of all the variants I’ve seen, Grin is the only one that would have excited my brain because it preserves the beauty described in the original paper (it’s not exact though, we’ve added a coinbase output and kernel type for instance). The average user won’t understand the difference between these projects (nor should they) because they’d have to understand the original design and other designs to be able to tell the differences. There’s something about constructs that have this “mathematical beauty” that may attract some people that appreciate these things to help work on it. Time will tell whether Grin will be able to do that, but it’s worth a shot and the best chance we have is if we preserve the unique position in the space and make sure the right people see it.

3 Likes
5

Mimble Wimble is often used when talking about Taproot, but I get your point. Maybe we should rename these implementations to Watered-down Mimble Wimble (WMW) :stuck_out_tongue:

I fully agree. For that reason I think other MW projects have little effect on Grin. People at best know the name MW, not these implementation details. People who a ‘intuition’ for mathematical beauty, minimalism are intuitively attracted to Grin, as am I myself. The masses are only attracted to a project if a) the number goes up b) there is a very clear and direct use cases that holds the immediate short term promise of the number goes up. Grin is not that type of project. On the long run its merits will become clearer and clearer, especially since the limitations of other projects will become more apparent over time.

Although I applaud any attempts of marketing, education or exposure of others to Grin. The above is something we always should keep in mind. Not everyone can or should be convinced. We can only show the door, but whether someone walk through it is their own decisions.

3 Likes
6

That’s strange. I don’t think there’s any element of MW in Taproot, but I honestly haven’t been following much. It could be due to scriptless scripts, but these themselves are not MW either.

2 Likes
7

I think you are right. It is just that the soft fork that introduced Taproot also introduces Schnorr signatures to Bitcoin, so they are sort of taken together when discussed. So probably the only link is Schnorr signatures, which are great since they support MultSig wallets and make them indistinguishable from other transactions, but that is not the same as Mimble Wimble. But I am also not following it much, to busy with Grin to follow Bitcoin.

1 Like
8

If I have time I’ll tweet at Dogecoin developers to adopt MWEB like Litecoin did. I work overtime though, so please others, reach out to Dogecoin devs and show them the pros and cons