Why Grin is cool and will have a bright future

  1. Bitcoin and sorts became a sad greater-fool-theory-vehicle. Everybody just gets in so they can sell later for profit. It was meant to overcome the manipulation and arbitrarily of the federal banks. Now its tolerated by the finance system because they can track your bitcoin-transactions. Congratuations everyone.
    Grin on the other hand is an inverted greater-fool-theory-vehicle. Here you can only sell lower than you bought because the value decreases constantly. So if you get involved with Grin there’s at least a small chance that you do it for the right reasons. A Grin seller makes the buyer look smarter than himself, which is kind of a polite gesture.

  2. Being a privacy coin means at some point Grin likely will become forbidden in most parts of the world. Because Privacy is a Human Right (Art.8 European Human Rights Convention) that is being constantly abused by the governments, getting banned for just being “private” is nothing but a quality mark. If it were up to me, Grin could not be banned fast enough, such a ban only proves that Grin works well.
    The only person that may ever track you using Grin is Ivan Bogatyy, that i consider a tolerable risk.
    When they are done with banning privacy coins they will move on to ban or cripple cryptography in general, as it was already proposed in Australia and USA.

  3. Grins monetary policy is flawless. Not for greater-fool-theory-vehicle lovers of course. But think about it. It will secure the Network forever. Every project that finally comes to reason and instantiates a constant emission rate that will secure its network in the future, will have a super high inflation rate in the beginning, just like Grin had when it started. But by the time such a project sees the light of day, Grins inflation rate already had decreased, so Grin virtually will always have that advantage towards any other project that has been introduced after Grin. If you come to realize that the fixed supply as Bitcoin and many other projects offer is fundamentally flawed and you want to get involved in a project that avoids such thing, why would you want to pic a “constant-emission-rate-project” with a high inflation? You would pick a “constant-emission-rate-project” with low inflation and that would always be the oldest project -> most likely Grin. Time works in Grins favor.

  4. Grin is yellow. Just perfect.

  5. So Grin has basically everything it needs to become something meaningful in the next decade, oh wait: It has no one-sided transaction. Forget everything i said, nobody will use it, because its barely usable and when u still get to use it, its more than often super fucking complicated and requires several steps from at least 2 people in a specific order! GRRRR!!!

12 Likes

Finally, someone who gets the new forum section. :dart:

4 Likes

Well done, I was planning my own rant about the economic beauty of infinite linear supply, and what has become my favorit feature of Grin, interactivity. This revealed to myself how rigid I had become since it took me a few months to see the true beauty of interactive transfers. If Bitcoin had not existed, everyone would love interactive transfers since the user experience is more similar to bank transfers than non-interactive transfers.

I have a Grin++ support channel full of people who disagree with you. I think eliminating the finalize step will make the interaction much more tolerable though. It would at least make receiving Grin intuitive (IRL, there is not “finalize” part of a person-to-person cash transaction).

Non-interactive transfers aren’t really Schnorr-compatible, in a clean way at least, it’s like trying to put a circle into a square in my point of view.

i think Grin is great and have a future becuz it has an i DEA.

You cant kill,destroy it as long as…

Fully agree with you on that. I think interactive transfers without the finalise step would be the most intuitive user experience while keeping the advantages of ‘interactivity’, which for me means that the receiver has to exist and confirm the transaction. The finalise step has no purpose from a user experience perspective, its an unfortunate necesity which hopefully can be removed without opening too many attack vectors. In my opinion, even if there might be some slight security risks with removing the finalise step, this still would be the way to go.
In other words, usability trumps technical perfection.

Also for offline transactions using slatepacks it would be a much better experience once the finalise step is removed. E.g. your mining pool sends you transaction slates by email or shows it on your online account but does not need to bother with transactions that might bounce. Finally, the amount of transaction types should be reduced and all the ‘magic’ should happen under the hood. Real magic is if is something just works without the need to understand the inner workings. I hope Grin will mature with the upcomming hard fork and will prioritize usability over technical perfection.

4 Likes

I’ve decided to write down my current understanding of the difference of the two. My current view is that interactive transactions are harder to get right, but more powerful. I probably missed a few points because I wrote things that popped in my head and it’s not a well-thought thing. The points I list are protocol agnostic, they have nothing to do with Mimblewimble itself.

2 Likes

2 Likes

what do you mean by both ?

Support interactive & non-interactive, leaving it up to the user. Any non-interactive scheme can also support interactive txs.

3 Likes

I think that as soon as you have one-sided possible, two big benefits of two-sided txs go away (dusting attack, full ownership over what is in your wallet). I’m not really sure about that claim, but it seems like this to me

Interaction doesn’t actually solve dusting attacks, but you could always just not share your non-interactive public key.

it allows for solving it if the receiver chooses to manually confirm all txs. Yes, if you never shared it, then it’s possible. If you share it just once with someone, then I think that anyone could send you dust outputs

This, again, assumes a level of knowledge most users don’t have. By the same logic, coin control also solves dusting attacks.

It’s not safe to assume users even know what a dusting attack is.

1 Like

Don’t support non-interactive (that complicates the consensus model).
Keep Grin minimal and lightweight, pure Mimblewimble.

3 Likes

I could be wrong about the UX, but couldn’t the receiver simply have a prompt “Please confirm the received values by clicking on the ‘confirm’ button.”? On confirm, it does it’s signing part and sends this back to the sender

But how does that prevent someone from sending me a small amount that can be linked to my other outputs? Or what if you’re expecting someone to send you X coins, but they use multiple tiny outputs to do it?

Besides, why can’t a non-interactive wallet just require users to accept transactions before ever using the outputs from that? It’s the exact same UX

You can decide not to accept the received small amount (hence why you have control over your wallet). Not sure I understand, if they want to send you X coins, I don’t think it matters how many inputs they send you, It should be up to the receiver to construct their own set of outputs that sum up to X (which would probably be just 1 output holding X coins)

Yeah I think some variant would be possible, but I’m not sure it would be the same UX. This ‘accept’ happens asynchronously, so the time difference can be days/weeks before you open a wallet and need to make a decision to accept/ignore the new outputs. A small annoyance would also be that you’d have to accept them in every wallet you own because it is an information in the local wallet state.

1 Like

Yea, my claim about that was wrong. I forgot receiver builds their own output.

1 Like