That’s what the low chain growth rate is about, resulting in a smaller IBD and faster sync.
Emission curve: Change exponential to logarithmic.
Hides the transaction graph (untraceability) - It has at least some untraceability.
Doesn't require scanning the chain upon opening the wallet - While theoretically true, it is false in practice. Every wallet scans on open because it’s not safe to assume the seed isn’t reused on multiple wallets.
1 Like
There’s nothing logarithmic about either Bitcoin or Monero.
Bitcoin’s emission curve is cumulative of floor(50e8 sat*(1/2)^(floor(height/210000))). I’m not sure if calling that exponential is appropriate, but it’s true that rewards get exponentially smaller, and looking back from the final emitted satoshi, the remaining emission grows exponentially. Exponential approach might be better; I don’t know.
Maybe you mean that bitcoin’s emission curve looks vaguely like a logarithm? The latter, being unbounded is distinctly different though.
Grin has practically none to mempool observer.
This entry is about possibility, not current practice. User could trivially configure wallet as single seed owner once we add this.
Would exponential decay be accurate? Or exponential decrease maybe? Or just the less formal decreasing? “Exponential” in colloquial English means increasing at an ever faster rate, so it seems like the wrong choice for this.
Well, it provides historical untraceability. And there are a number of options for increasing graph obfuscation that could be implemented at the p2p layer or elsewhere. I agree it’s weaker untraceability than monero (and probably always will be), but just saying “no” does grin a disservice. Perhaps just changing it to weak instead of no would be appropriate?
Seems like a gimmick though. This isn’t an option any user-focused wallet would likely ever care to support, because the risk to users who accidentally configure it wrong outweighs the advantages for the rare advanced user that would want to turn on the single-wallet seed option.
1 Like
Not much with explorers able to show historical tx boundaries from having historically observed the mempool.
I would suggest we wait until CoinSwap is deployed before making untraceability claims.
I expect users with a single seed across multiple devices will be in the minority.
That’s a fair point, so historical untraceability is probably not something we should claim. I still think weak unlinkability would be appropriate though.
It’s already fairly common for Grin users to use the same seed in their desktop and mobile grin wallets, and our only use case is depositing and withdrawing to exchanges. If we ever succeed at getting real world adoption, I can only assume that would become even more common. Just think about how most spouses use the same bank account and same credit card accounts, yet have their own phones. It seems likely they would share their wallet seeds, so they both have access to the funds when they need it.
Also, many people like to transact in-person using their phones, but use their desktops for online purchases or to analyze their spending. There are just so many cases where we can expect users to reuse seeds that I’m not sure it would ever be safe for wallets to not analyze the chain on open.
That’s not an argument against offering a skip scan option for the many if not a majority of users that don’t share seeds across devices.
1 Like