Proposed anonimity feature : The Dark Blockchain
-
Well, this is better than Tor.
Wrapper, do you think we have a chance at developing this?
After the algo change, I think this should be a priority.
The choice.
-
Re: Do you think we have a chance at developing this the Dark Block chain addresses?
In principle I don’t think it is that difficult. Basically it is adding another level of encryption, otherwise uses all the same technology. Assuming there is no other draw backs.
It’s a good first step that no one so far is saying that it’s not possible or has been done / proposed already.
Personally, why I have highlighted it, it needs discussion, and maybe there are other technologies developing we should consider. I see feathercoin being flexible is one of our strength, just considering it is good.
The long confirm time for merchants and Bitcoin being only being pseudo anonymous, with it’s privacy concerns with rampant state surveillance, are disadvantages to Bitcoins stated purpose as a decentralised currency.
Extra privacy is also an area where, as I mentioned before, we might get extra support to implement it, so it would be “easier” than the hashing algorithm change.
Firstly we need more discussion. I’m still a bit too ill to be writing white papers, but have thought this through a lot so should be able to help answer any further questions on how it could work…
-
I agree that we need the option of sending coins anon.
People should be able to choose their level of security.
I see both 2FA and Dark Addresses as been a priority.
Once the Neo dust has settled, we will get this in the works.
-
I’m very much in favour of this.
-
Hi All,
Quick intro - Long-time lurker - I’m a Software engineer with about 18 yrs c/c++, assembler experience. I’m currently in the 3G telecoms field and have little experience with security/hashing algos (apart from the 3G ones), etc. However I currently have my head buried in mining software, trying to get up to speed with mining, hashing, OpenCL, etc in my spare time.
As a result some of my comments here maybe a bit simplistic / already discussed, or completely irrelevant.
However I too agree that this is a good idea. Especially with the rise of cryptonote based currencies like Monero/Boolberry which have the anonymity built in.
I can see a “shakeout” time coming where a lot of altcoins without anonymity option will go extinct as people switch, hence it probably is a matter of survival for FTC to adopt it. It would give FTC a distinct advantage over most of the alt-coins out there.
I also like the idea that anonymity is optional. This is currently the case with Monero, however the developers aim to remove this and go fully anonymous in the future.
I enclose a few links about cryptonote/monero below - as there may be concepts that could prove useful (perhaps?).
Cheers
Dave
(Disclosure - I own FTC, Monero, and Boolberry).
Links:
Cryptonote whitepaper - https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf
Monero main site - http://www.monero.cc/
-
Darkness is a bad idea. The inspectable blockchain and wallets ensure a straightforward way of checking that coins are not being created out of thin air, just like ic can be easily checked that computational work on the blockchain has really been done. The main goal of cryptos is to supersede the debt based fiat currency, whose units are created out of nothing.
I do not know whether dark blockchain is or is not a hoax (ie. has critcial vulnerability fundamentally compromising the currency), I have not studied that. It may be that the very idea of dark blockchain is flawed. But even if it’s not, the present fashion of dark coins is merely a hype from the desire for some “innovation” to flavor creation more and more clone coins. The coins that will die in the “shakeout” will be those without a dedicated community, ie. all those dark coins. Bitcoin won’t die, athough its blockchain is public, and feathercoin likewise will not die. Already with bitcoin, you can create a wallet or a number or wallets whose ownership you can successfuly deny and keep secret. Bitcoin is hard enough to understand even for people with computing background, dark blockchain, if sanely possible at all, only makes things more obscure.
On the contrary, it might be desirable for Feathercoin to create a real name subnet, where the wallets are known by the real name of their owner. You can note that the recent New York bitcoin legislation demands the very same thing: identification of the sender and the receiver for every transaction within the scope of the legislation. The governments will demand it and the real time subnet would offer it, while leaving intact the option of having anonymous wallets.
-
Darkness is a bad idea. The inspectable blockchain and wallets ensure a straightforward way of checking that coins are not being created out of thin air, just like ic can be easily checked that computational work on the blockchain has really been done.
Nono
Everything will still be in the blockchain. It’s just each user can choose whether or not each transaction they make, is mixed up enough that it is no longer traceable back to the original wallets.
This takes ftc back to the root of crypto’s. Privacy in money.
If all transactions were forced to be anon or “dark” then that would be bad as it could render a coin instantly illegal if the gov would to choose so.
By having a choice, businesses are still free to conduct business in an open and transparent manner.
Transaction Security Level
1. Public - Light address tied to public identity
2. Normal - Light address that is difficult to trace3. Private - Dark address that is still verifiable on the BC but can’t be traced back to it’s original address.
-
That’s called funds laundering. Laundering services are already available for bitcoin (coin laundry etc.). If you want to launder feathercoins today, you can convert them to bitcoin and use those laundries. Laundry for feathercoin might be a viable business idea (or not), but there is definitely no need to pollute the coin core with it. Laudering is still not bulletproof and it does not help the coin reputation either.
As for the “root of cryptos” that you mention, “crypto” prefix does not mean that a cryptographic currency is supposed to make your financial activities covert. Cryptographic hash functions are merely used to make it hard to rewrite the financial history of the coin. I firmly hope you read the bitcoin whitepaper and what it says about making the transactions public and sacrificing privacy properties for the quality of preventing double-spending. For privacy, one should use cash or gold, not electronic currencies.
I agree that privacy is a good thing, but if you paid at least marginal attention to what Snowden said, you would know that privacy is in such a deplorable state that it will not help you if you are the only dark spot in otherwise brightly lit room. If you want deflationary currency with high privacy properties, use gold and pay the costs connected with its protection, hiding, transport, verification etc.
-
I think there will always be a requirement for the general public to maintain privacy from other members of the general public. Or companies from other companies, until it’s addressed, there might be a hurdle to adoption.
-
But there *is* privacy. Feathercoin has as much privacy as bitcoin. There were notable cases where many members of general public had great interest in breaching privacy of another user, namely Sheep Marketplace thief, or Mt Gox thief. Did they succeed? No. So what problem, what hurdle are you talking about?
OK, maybe I understand, the prices are hitting rock bottom and we are searching for culprits. But it is not privacy fears (which would be groundless as I’ve just shown), but the lack of advertisement that keeps the prices down. Don’t blame the wrong cause, instead do you homework of introducing Feathercoin to the right people, like I do.
-
Hi panoramix,
But there *is* privacy. Feathercoin has as much privacy as bitcoin. There were notable cases where many members of general public had great interest in breaching privacy of another user, namely Sheep Marketplace thief, or Mt Gox thief. Did they succeed? No. So what problem, what hurdle are you talking about?
Actually I disagree here. The public blockchain is great for organisations that wish to be open and publicly accountable for what they spend, and how they spend it. But for businesses and individuals that are using it as a bank account it leaks information all over the place about what other BTC/FTC/etc addresses that user holds, and also what they are spending it on.
I can see a whole new field of crypto-forensics being developed specifically to tap the blockchain information leaks to allow specific address(es) to be linked to a person or organisation.
Just like Google uses our browsing history for targeted advertising, block-chain information too could ultimately be used to, say, identify high net worth individuals and target them (be it happy things like selling yachts, or nasty things like extortion). It would just be another tool in the box.
I have come to the opinion that BTC is likely to fill a niche roll in business (like accept bitcoin payments for customer convenience and immediately converting to fiat), and businesses are not likely to keep a substantial amount of crypto for security reasons (example: companies would be able to work out how much BTC their rivals have, another example: customer pays in BTC, company can then check the balance of the sending addresses used, work out a rough estimate of net BTC worth, and adjust prices (up?) for the next purchases accordingly, or even target ads at the customer to sell more expensive kit).
Privacy is not just something to protect the bad guys.
To flip this on it’s head - information is power, and just how much power do you wish to give away?
Cheers
Dave
-
Dave, do you know what the Sheep Marketplace thief has done? He sold. At the first ocasion. What do you think he has done with most of his money? He bought back lower. Laundered. No need for obscure blockchains. No member of general public knows who he is. But if you are a forensic guy with really high-level information access, then there is no way he can in this surveillance society hide the fact he got filthy rich from the theft. You know what, you are a good speaker. You should set up a feathercoin laundry business and persuade your customers that they need your services.
-
Darkness is a bad idea. The inspectable blockchain and wallets ensure a straightforward way of checking that coins are not being created out of thin air, just like ic can be easily checked that computational work on the blockchain has really been done. The main goal of cryptos is to supersede the debt based fiat currency, whose units are created out of nothing.
Thanks for the discussion, it’s been very interesting.
As far as the problem that a straightforward method of knowing coins aren’t been created out of thin air. I think that has now been proved, at least for Bitcoin. It may be too early for other coins to go completely Dark.
Even so, the holder and sender of funds will know the amount is correct. There will be also a slight leak of coin amount information, where coins are mined. If it is a solo mine then the encrypted coin total will be known / surmised. If it is a pool, then unencrypted amounts could be taken from the total, to show the amount encrypted miners obtained.
I’m still considering if there are any technical problems and am interested to investigate how any other coins are approaching extra the anonymity requirement.
Cryptonote whitepaper - https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf
Monero main site - http://www.monero.cc/
-
I’m also happy to be in the light. Iv got nothing to hide. I don’t really care of everyone in the world knew how much money I had. 99.9999% of people don’t give a crap.
The government would want to know to make sure I’m not a drug dealer or not paying my taxes. Why is anonymity so important?
I love the dark block chain theory tho. Its quite a clever idea. :)
-
People are slowly growing allergic on anon coins imo…
-
Nah just anon coins are flavour of the month
-
Hi panoramix,
Actually I disagree here. The public blockchain is great for organisations that wish to be open and publicly accountable for what they spend, and how they spend it. But for businesses and individuals that are using it as a bank account it leaks information all over the place about what other BTC/FTC/etc addresses that user holds, and also what they are spending it on.
I can see a whole new field of crypto-forensics being developed specifically to tap the blockchain information leaks to allow specific address(es) to be linked to a person or organisation.
Just like Google uses our browsing history for targeted advertising, block-chain information too could ultimately be used to, say, identify high net worth individuals and target them (be it happy things like selling yachts, or nasty things like extortion). It would just be another tool in the box.
I have come to the opinion that BTC is likely to fill a niche roll in business (like accept bitcoin payments for customer convenience and immediately converting to fiat), and businesses are not likely to keep a substantial amount of crypto for security reasons (example: companies would be able to work out how much BTC their rivals have, another example: customer pays in BTC, company can then check the balance of the sending addresses used, work out a rough estimate of net BTC worth, and adjust prices (up?) for the next purchases accordingly, or even target ads at the customer to sell more expensive kit).
Privacy is not just something to protect the bad guys.
To flip this on it’s head - information is power, and just how much power do you wish to give away?
Cheers
Dave
+1
-
For ftc, nothing is a flavour. They are all features.
-
I’m also happy to be in the light. Iv got nothing to hide. I don’t really care of everyone in the world knew how much money I had. 99.9999% of people don’t give a crap.
The government would want to know to make sure I’m not a drug dealer or not paying my taxes. Why is anonymity so important?
I love the dark block chain theory tho. Its quite a clever idea. :)
My attitude is a bit different. There are two opposing types of major threats: One is that of individual evildoers (“terrorists”) harming everyone they can reach. The other is that of a misguided government harming everyone they can reach. To counter the first one, we need surveillance and disempowerment of individuals. To counter the second one we need privacy and empowerment of individuals. I think that the second threat is bigger so I think we need privacy. Also, individual disempowerment is almost complete today. I am for privacy, but we need to figure out how to prevent individuals from launching existential disasters.
That being said, dark blockchain is a snake oil with respect to privacy. Transactions of a decentralized electronic currency must be published to prevent double spending. So the the “dark” transactions *must*, by definition, be also published. As Nakamoto points out in the bitcoin whitepaper, privacy properties of a decentralized electronic currency are necessarily worse than those of cash. One thing that can be done is laundering: Splitting a transaction into a number of partial transactions. “Dark” blockchain merely integrates this laundry service, which was already available before, into coin software.
There are several reasons why “dark” blockchain is not very helpful in solving the privacy problem:
1. Laundering is not too hard to analyze. Privacy properties of “dark” currency remain worse than those of cash. At the end of the transfer, it is still a matter of the user keeping secret her ownership of the wallet(s) – same as with bitcoin.
2. The real privacy battleground is not the blockchain, but the user’s machine. As Snowden said, practically all computers have hardware and software backdoors introduced by the manufacturers. Dark blockchain is irrelevant when a misguided government can read (or worse) the state of your wallet off your screen.
The above two reasons mean that a “dark” blockchain disempowers the individual users (for whom the blockchain becomes much less transparent), but keeps empowered the organizations that are already very powerful. On the contrary, real name wallets would have opposite, equalizing effect, while sacrificing a only a tiny bit more privacy â€" because we don’t have almost any left. In other words, I instinctively prefer individual empowerment over centralized government (though I would promptly change my mind should individuals turn out to be more existentially dangerous), but if I can only choose one, then I prefer white government over a dark one.
3. Aside from the privacy / government concerns, “dark” blockchain may simply be an invitation for dark software engineers. It is not possible for me to think about all the fraud possibilities for self enrichment by modifying (backdoor, virus…) the coin software, but I can imagine that “dark” blockchain would make such irregularities much harder to discover.
In sum, I think that the hype of dark blockchains will soon be over, and it will no longer be necessary to explain why we don’t need them.
-
My only issue is that there’s always that very real chance that gov’s will give the thumbs up to crypto’s provided they do not have an anon feature…
If that happened, we would have to pull the feature immediately.
