Proposed anonimity feature : The Dark Blockchain
-
yeah thats a point although I think banks are not really the guys we want to be working with.
There is a UK service for validating identity. I think its something to do with the passport office.
It would be great if we could link our service into that and then the link would be in stone. A real person with a real address etc.
Not sure if this exists in other countries. Or for that matter if this service is open to the public (may have just been internal) its what the dvla uses I think.
-
-
You guys are amazing. I think that at the beginning, white subnet identities with only a very small amounts of coins would require but a simple unverified real name declaration. Later, the CIC could require higher level of identification.
-
Most members think the dark block chain is a good idea, if feasible.
It can be developed as an open source project, it doesn’t have to be implemented in Feathercoin. That can be discussed when applicable.
It is an area I thought might engender some co-operation coin wide.
I was thinking we could change the name to reduce the anon dark coin confusion.
“private block chain addresses”
-
Paypal are like… almost worse than the banks…
I meant like paypal does, not specifically using paypal. To verify your account, paypal deposit a small amount in your account and you verify the amounts thus proving you are the owner of the bank account and therefore a real person.
-
Most members think the dark block chain is a good idea, if feasible.
It can be developed as an open source project, it doesn’t have to be implemented in Feathercoin. That can be discussed when applicable.
It is an area I thought might engender some co-operation coin wide.
I was thinking we could change the name to reduce the anon dark coin confusion.
“private block chain addresses”
My only concern is that it builds in the ability to auto launder your coins.
Bush spoke of launching a new coin, a real testbed for ftc… Maybe we should consider launching a ftc clone when we fork so it can be used to test out both idea’s of light and dark / Coloured and Private. (which ever wording is more app)
Does your idea wrapper merely increase privacy?
-
Well.
I think we should develop both and launch them in a brand new NeoScrypt coin.
We can give all the adhd miners something real fresh to play with.
Maybe we could have this new test coin merge mined with ftc…?
Would that help in anyway.
Basicly I’m fully keen for both but they need to be tested out in the real world and see how they behave. Also see how the cryptosphere evolves as well.
-
I think that there are enough dark blockchains already available for those who want to use them. Wouldn’t the simplest solution be to simply recommend people who need integrated laundering to use DarkCoin, or Cryptcoin, or Cloakcoin instead of us? Or Razor, with its integrated Tor connection? They are the innovators. It is bad manners to simply take their innovations without so much as saying thanks. We would get flamed for this. It sounds harsh, but Feathercoin might be already desperately outdated and all these imitation efforts would make us only more ridiculous. We should maintain this dusty coin only as a museum exhibit and send the majority of the investors with real needs to the real innovators.
-
But jokes aside, there is no such thing as dark blockchain. I’ll be repeating myself for the third time to say that digital currency transactions must be published in order to prevent double-spending. Applying the software engineering principle of separation of concerns, laundering is a concern of a wallet. It has nothing to do with the blockchain whatsoever. We might therefore want a laundering wallet for FTC, just like there is dark wallet for bitcoin, and we might want to promote its use by showing that social benefits of increased privacy outweigh the social costs of increased privacy of evildoers.
-
Feathercoin is a development platform. It’s what we do. We have so much code that you can’t find anywhere else, or if you do, it’s everywhere cause we came up with it. ACP for one, we copped huge amounts of flaming for that but what happens, a number of coins implement it without saying anything.
We are not about what’s popular and what’s not. We do need to keep a number of things in mind though, keeping ftc legal is one of them.
I propose a new coin to develop onto before adopting the changes into ftc itself.
Let’s call it featherclone for namesake.
We make dark and light addresses on featherclone. When they’re done, we port over the light addresses feature, but withhold on the dark addresses until we feel safe that it won’t jeopardise ftc’s legality.
-
My only concern is that it builds in the ability to auto launder your coins.
Bush spoke of launching a new coin, a real testbed for ftc… Maybe we should consider launching a ftc clone when we fork so it can be used to test out both idea’s of light and dark / Coloured and Private. (which ever wording is more app)
Does your idea wrapper merely increase privacy?
The coins are just private, there is no money laundering involved.
Where as with other privacy / dark methods, coins are swapped between addresses to hide there origin, this does not happen with the “Private Addresses” (on the dark blockchain). The addresses and amounts are just encrypted and can be viewed if permission is given.
For instance, If being accused of money laundering is a concern, then we could use multi-sig technology so the owner of a coin address could release a “viewing address code”, which would let a 3rd party view the address transactions.
This could also be the way you make your address public. A vanity public viewing address could be the method of having open coins, for , say, charities who want full public auditing. Or semi private where you send an decoding address to the Tax office, or an auditor so they can view your books.
You can always send your coins to a new private address - once you have released a viewing address, to make them dark again.
-
But jokes aside, there is no such thing as dark blockchain. I’ll be repeating myself for the third time to say that digital currency transactions must be published in order to prevent double-spending.
The private addresses are published, they are just encrypted.
I would be interested to see any explanation of how private addresses would enable double spending?
-
Or Razor, with its integrated Tor connection? They are the innovators. It is bad manners to simply take their innovations without so much as saying thanks.
Again, this is negative for no reason, why wouldn’t we say thanks, if we chose to implement Tor or some such?.
Feathercoin is an open source development, we are already building on the shoulders of other coins, such as Bitcoin and Litecoin and they built on the shoulders of the inventors of programming languages or computer hardware etc etc.
-
The private addresses are published, they are just encrypted.
I would be interested to see any explanation of how private addresses would enable double spending?
On the contrary, I would be interested to see any explanation of how can I check that the inflation plan is being followed when the contents of some of the wallets is secret.
Citing Nakamoto’s whitepaper, chapter 2: “We need a way for the payee to know that the previous owners did not sign any earlier tansactions. For our purposes, the earliest transaction is the on that counts, so we don’t care about later attempts to double-spend. The only way to confirm the absence of a transaction is to be aware of all transactions (emphasis by me). In the mint based model, the mint was aware of all transactions and decided which arrived first. To accomplish this without a trusted party, transactions must be publicly announced (reference omitted), and we need a system for participants to agree on a single history of the order in which they were received.”
If the majority of the nodes don’t know the sender’s balance, the transaction amount, and the receiver’s amount, how can they validate a transaction? How can they agree on their order? Whom will they trust?
-
Again, Nakamoto, Chapter 10., Privacy: “The traditional banking model achieves a level of privacy by limiting access to information to the parties involved and the trusted third party. The necessity to announce all transactions publicly precludes this method (emphasis by me), but privacy can still be maintained by breaking the flow of information in another place: by keeping public keys anonymous. The public can see that someon is seding an amount to someone else, but without information linking the transaction to anyone. This is similar to the level of information released by stock exchanges, where the time and size of individual trades, the “tape”, is made public, but without telling who the parties were.”
So, was Nakamoto wrong in his paper? Should another paper be published invalidating his assertion, on which the blockchain is is built? Or am I misunderstanding you?
-
The private addresses are published, they are just encrypted.
How can the transactions be published when they are encrypted? Or what do you mean by encrypted? Do you mean some kind of encryption that any member of public can decrypt in order to validate a transaction?
I simply can’t see how a transaction can be published and encrypted at the same time.
-
Let’s call it featherclone for namesake.
Scalecoin, Furcoin or Haircoin haha.
-
Scalecoin, Furcoin or Haircoin haha.
Furcoin is not bad at all, but Horncoin or Hoofcoin would be good, too.
-
Scalecoin, Furcoin or Haircoin haha.
You know… If we called it Furcoin, it might become popular amongst the anthro community :D They don’t have a coin yet!
-
How can the transactions be published when they are encrypted? Or what do you mean by encrypted? Do you mean some kind of encryption that any member of public can decrypt in order to validate a transaction?
I simply can’t see how a transaction can be published and encrypted at the same time.
I think what wrapper is saying, is that the address appears scrambled. You can see where the coins came from and where they went if they have theft the address… what you can’t see, is the true identifier of the address itself, or the amount. The opposite can exist to have a light address…
I’m gonna re read it all again, but I think I’m starting to understand this concept.
With one swoop, using the same technique, we could create both vanity (light) addresses, which are easy to associate for mainstream adoption. And at the same time, the change would allow for private (dark) addresses.
