I graduated in law,and don’t know much about grin code and protocols, I have some questions:
1、the code and protocols are really open source and there are no problems?
2、compared to Bitcoin,it is More concise and elegant ?
3、The GRIN network will never be shut down or abandoned like Turtlecoin? I have bought some turtlecoin,and the network shut down,the coins became wrapped turtlecoin.turtlecoin investment has been total lost.
Overall, I wonder if technically, the grin coin, which was released 10 years later than Bitcoin, is it more advanced than Bitcoin? That’s what gives me the confidence to hold and mine firmly
技术上，
我不是很懂代码和加密货币协议，我一直有一些疑问：
1、古灵币代码是否开源，协议是否没有问题。
2、相对于比特币，代码是否更优雅和简洁
3、是否乌龟币一样消失。
总的来说，我想知道技术上，比比特币晚10年发布的古灵币是否比比特币先进？这才让我有坚定持有和挖掘的信心
Yes, it is more advanced and elegant than Bitcoin. Obviously it has greater privacy properties than Bitcoin, and for that same reason keeps the size of the blockchain ledger small. As of today the ledger is a little over 4GB in size.
What is not mentioned enough is the fungibility of GRIN coins compared to bitcoins. Because all spent Grin outputs are essentially tumbled every 1 minute block they are all the same, whereas bitcoins are tainted when associated with illegal activities.
Grin can no more be shut down than Bitcoin can be shut down. As long as there are miners to mine blocks (like you) the network will keep keeping on. Grin would not exist without Bitcoin, and represents a much better model for digital cash, or a “Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”.
They are not. Outputs look alike to the extent that there are no visible amounts or user-related addresses, but the tx graph is still visible. Only the optional use of the CoinSwap protocol would be tumbling all the outputs involved.
Here’s how Grin is more elegant: Are There Any Public Cryptocurrency/Blockchain Projects Seriously Rivaling Grin's Simplicity? : CryptoTechnology
I was using tumbling more metaphorically than literally, but thanks for the clarification. I am assuming Grin offers stronger (and more decentralised) privacy than bitcoin tumblers, although am now unclear what information is leaked in the tx graph you mentioned.
How would you improve upon the metaphor, and do you agree with my assertion about fungibility in Grin? Thanks, John
The transaction graph allows you to for example link outputs via the transaction graph from one exchange (who know your identity) to another exchange (who knows the receivers identity).
Amounts are unknown in grin transactions (except to the sender and receiver) and unless you monitor and store the mempool, all transactions are merged in a block into one single transaction making graph information more obscured to normal users when the number of transactions in a block increases. Since there are few transactions now per block, you can more easily link inputs to outputs.
But yes, better fungability than Bitcoin.
If in the future PayJoins are made default, the direction of a transaction becomes obfuscated, again improving privacy and fungability. If you would use Mwixnet, that would tumble your outputs and as such inprove privacy and fungability. If however exchanges would not accept/buy outputs from mixers, then mixing would not improve fungability. You also see this with many exchanges that do not accept tumbled Bitcoin. Hence payJoins might be more important since they improve the privacy of all transactions by obfuscating the direction of transactions.