Becuz of this political mindset of trying to control every inch of this open source project. This drove away many contributers. Community driven so called,simply not true.
You will never have a perfect privacy even you live in 2130. This is a holy grail. Only you can run fast in a race.
So hesitating at more privacy ,those criminal-privacy argument invented by controlling government is now defended by a core member?
thats your flawed thinking man. Whom behalf you speaking? G20 Gendairme Special Force Unit?
I would prefer to avoid the Core vs Community rhetoric, this will not add anything constructive at this point.
It can be dangerous probably, but I think most of the time it depends on who defines what is dangerous. I will give you an example. In South Africa, private guns are prohibited by law. Lately law abiding citizens are trying to defend their businesses and neighborhoods using… wait for it… guns! who would have expected it… those who passed the laws enjoy the private protection mostly, while the rest of the people are being victimized by those who ignore all kinds of laws and regulations.
Nobody is trying to control every inch of grin, that’s nonsense and if you disagree with that then state examples of where people are trying to do that (note that stating opinion doesn’t mean you are trying to control anything) What drove people away is people attacking the devs - the way you just did, just to a lesser degree
On what did you base that? Is there any proof for that statement or are you just guessing?
On behalf of myself, that’s my opinion. Your response provides no counter argument or anything else so my advice is that when you try to show people that they’re wrong give them some constructive criticism to show them why they’re wrong
Sure I get that, but that’s just an example from a real world, that doesn’t mean perfect privacy is desirable. As a counter example, in some country not long ago they’ve caught a person who wanted to do a mass murder (bought guns etc), if he had an easy perfect privacy option he would have done it. Now the same as before that doesn’t mean that perfect privacy is not desirable. I think no solution is perfect when there are bad people in this world, but there are enough selfish and badly raised people in this world that they could make the world a lot worse to live in than it is today if they had an option of perfect privacy. I get why people would want perfect privacy, i just don’t think it would work well in today’s world
Give me an argument as to why you think perfect privacy isn’t dangerous and why you think the world would be a better place with it (than with a still solid privacy but not perfect)
Yes, most people don’t care about privacy yet, however, most people are not interested in Grin yet either. the majority of people who are interested in Grin, care about privacy. Not even because they have a compelling use case for privacy, but more so from an ideological perspective. Grin is considered a privacy coin within the crypto space and for most people, privacy is Grin’s most important attribute: https://twitter.com/DavidBurkett38/status/1303498860225007619?s=20
I’ve always pushed the narrative that Grin was not just a privacy coin and that it was competing with LTC/ BCH and not XMR/ZEC but it’s a futile effort when Grin is always going to carry that privacy coin label- Especially when you consider it from a regulator perspective, Grin with CT is always going to be labeled as a privacy coin and could eventually get outlawed with a basket of other privacy coins: EU officials unveil draft legislation for applying FATF’s ‘travel rule’ to crypto transactions (theblockcrypto.com)
As you’ve also allured to…
Exactly. It’s a binary thing, you’re either a privacy coin or you’re not.
Yes, coinswap sounds awesome. It breaks the tx graph without using decoys and also keeps MW’s cut through ability. Not sure why there hasn’t been more progress on getting this implemented. Perhaps this is something that needs to be added to the next CC meeting.
There’s no such thing as perfect privacy and if there was then Grin openly leaking the tx graph is so far from it.
Ultimately, I don’t think you can have your cake and eat it to- In the sense that privacy is enough for day to day transactions but not enough for dark web transactions. Eventually, there will be a cost-benefit for an adversary to trace your Grin for any type of transaction. It’s all kind of mute anyway, because, when regulators go after privacy coins, Grin will be included in that list.
Just because a coin has theoretical perfect privacy doesn’t mean it can’t be used for things like buying legitimate assets. It means that in order for the sale to complete then both sender/ receiver have to willingly reveal themselves in order to legally transfer the asset title.
Not only that, grin must be an accepted payment method for such things probably and that’s where perfect privacy is an issue (among some other things). I’m not a lawyer but my guess is that if I write a contract for buying a house where I pay with grin (and both me and the seller provide the proof) then that contract won’t be legal
The only reason it wouldn’t be a legal sale is if it becomes illegal to transact in privacy coins. From the info we have coming out from legislators, it wouldn’t matter if you have “perfect privacy” or not. It would be illegal to accept any privacy coin. Grin with CT is certainly going to be classified as a privacy coin from a regulatory perspective.
In the event of an asset sale( eg property), what would be the difference in using a coin with weak privacy vs a coin with perfect privacy? Providing both parties are willing to reveal themselves to prove the transactions took place.
Also, a typical property sale currently involves an intermediary( lawyer). Once the sale is confirmed the purchaser sends funds to the lawyer’s trust account, which then sends them to the vendor on the agreed-upon settlement date. In our current system, a payment proof/ view key wouldn’t even necessarily be required to complete the sale. However, the burden would be on the lawyer to verify the identity of both buyer/seller to make the sale legally binding- This is how it works in NZ/AUS/UK etc.
If all coins with CT are illegal then none. I hope they will allow CT though, if they only allow cryptocurrencies with visible amounts then they’re imo only useful for storing immutable data, not for actual real life transactions, which would be a shame
Interesting, in my country it’s usually a direct transaction from buyer to seller
If you just think about it logically; it seems naive to hope that a coin with CT transactions( a key privacy-preserving property) would somehow be excluded from a privacy coin ban. It’s also not like CT is the only privacy-preserving technique that Grin uses. We should assume we’re already a red flag- If we break down all the elements of Grin, we’re arguably a bigger threat than the majority of privacy coins. So the notion that we shouldn’t be aiming for perfect privacy, because, we don’t want criminals using Grin is trivial, when anyone using grin for day-to-day transactions could one day be considered a criminal.
You can still sell a property without a conveyancing lawyer/solicitor, but it’s considered essential to do so. Pretty sure it’s the same in the US. The sale of a property is an actual use case for smart contracts since all the info the conveyancing lawyer would gather/ verify would be built into the contract, thus eliminating the need for one.
my guess is that they won’t ban btc and that btc will get CT one day, so CT might not be enough to perma ban a cryptocurrency
Afaik the only other privacy thing we have is dandelion’s source hiding (which is probably as important to have as CT and i expect btc to implement it), everything else is very easy to game so it shouldn’t be considered a privacy increasing feature (eg. cut-through is for scalability not privacy, dandelion’s merging is not guaranteed and can be made redundant)
Tor is used to build transactions- The default method of sending a tx is via Tor so both parties can’t identify each other IPs. I’d call this a privacy-increasing feature. But regardless, the use of Tor must be a red flag for any regulator going after privacy coins.
Dear Mr/ Mrs Regulator,
Please exclude Grin from your privacy coin ban list,
We use confidential transactions so you can never see the amounts being sent, we also have no addresses, use dandelion to obscure the origin of transactions, and use Tor to build transactions so you can’t identify the IP I’m sending you a transaction from. Tor is even built into our wallets as part of the default transaction method ツ Soon we’re going to implement a new method of obfuscating the tx graph called CoinSwap, which could have fewer attack vectors vs a decoy based approach like Monero. Speaking of Monero, we are similar to them in the sense that we’re built on a protocol designed & developed by god knows who and also have no public founder/ foundation/ central entity, so good luck trying to shut us down.
Did I also mention that the more txs we have on our network the more private we become…Don’t worry though, we’re not a privacy coin
Today my peanut butter from Tunisia arrived, paid with Grin. No one will ever know how much i paid for it, except for the few lost souls who followed the offering on slatepacks.com
Grin works better than ever in my opinion. I experienced it first hand how horrible it can be:
But many of these issues have been resolved. Sure it sucks that many Devs left. But other did join (gene, renzokuken etc.). I am positive regarding Grin. These restrictions coming from governments are forming a use-case for grin as a privacy coin.
Vegycslol and Neo, you’re talking about very interesting concepts and privacy and scalability are more connected than it might seem at first. Let’s check the following two statements:
You MUST get more privacy if you get scalability
This is one is true. You can only scale when you have less information sent/stored and because you have less information, it means that you can answer less questions. Not being able to answer questions is a privacy improvement. At the very least, it should be harder to obtain the information so it is harder to get an answer.
You MUST get more scalability if you get privacy
This one is not true. Case in point are other privacy techniques used by Monero or ZCash. It adds privacy, but it makes scalability worse. While both MW and Monero use somewhat similar techniques, the former has a slightly different construction which provides a way to “forget/lose” the information via cut-through.
Scalability and privacy go hand in hand. To get scalability, you have no choice but to get some form of information reduction which can be thought of as privacy improvement. This reduction can even come in a form of Schnorr signature half-aggregation where one can no longer verify a signature separately (we no longer have an answer for verification of a single signature). This privacy clearly isn’t something end users are concerned about, but at its core, it’s the same thing - a loss of information and the inability to provide an answer.
In my eyes, MW is primarily a scalability improvement due to the ability to lose/forget information from the old blocks once the outputs get used. This reduces information needed for new nodes and makes the chain more compact. But the cut-through itself is not limited to the chain data as it can be performed on an output that never actually gets into a block. This allows us to lose/forget information before it was shared with everyone and this technique itself can be used to improve privacy. In other words, doing cut-through on outputs that are on the chain is primarily a scalability improvement. Performing cut-through on outputs that never land on the chain can also be seen as a privacy technique. And this one of the things that CoinSwap proposal takes advantage of. Note that in theory, we could lose information about old blocks and use something similar to the coinswap proposal to blind the links between outputs in a setting where the amounts were visible just like in Bitcoin. The fact that the whole construction builds on CT from the ground up with no addresses makes everything that much cooler and more private.
Nearly, I think you can send up to the smallest denominator which is 1 millionth of a Grin, so 0.000001 grin, the transaction cost would however be something like 0.02 Grin, which is still considerable. The reason why the transaction cost are having this high minimum value is to avoid user from making dust attacks, or overload the mem-pool (blocking real transaction). Now at least they have to pay 0.02 Grin for every transaction.
Although we could use this to obfuscate the transaction graph, Coin-Swap would be a better approach, hopefully we can get a programmer to implement it this year, it is a very promising proposal:
overnments are all-in with CBDC projects, like the EU; it will be interesting to see how a digital euro will comply with the GDPR stuff. Nobody knows what it will be happening in the future, what I believe is that some people will be surprised when politicians starts deciding what people should eat, wear, where to live, and what people must do with their money. Only then some people, and probably few of them, will care about privacy, and Grin, Monero, MWEB, Beam, Zcash, etc.
who would have expected it… those who passed the laws enjoy the private protection mostly, while the rest of the people are being victimized by those who ignore all kinds of laws and regulations.
