Proposed anonimity feature : The Dark Blockchain
-
I haven’t had a chance to read the bitlicense thing but I am aware if it. Is that basically the jist of it?
Also… Subnetwork? sorry, I just finished a 6 day week… sorta missed a lot on this topic… ill go through and read everything in a moment.
-
There is some anti goxification sugar coating on it, but the jist is that brokers must identify their clients, whose wallets thus become known. In effect, it creates an real-name subnet, which can be expected to expand. In the future, imo, restrictions against transacting with anonymous addresses are likely (Tell us the reason or give us a gift tax from the coins you send/receive from the anonymous address…) I’ve seen this flood coming months ago, and I proposed to Bush to flood Feathercoin with clean water before the muddy flood water arrives â€" that is, create a real-name subnet for Feathercoin on our terms. But nothing happened yet. Governments will turn cryptos into a tool of financial monitoring, which is nevertheless still better than fractional reserve banking.
-
Well…
How about we look at it this way…
Let 3rd parties make mixing services for ftc if they wish to risk so.
Let’s consider the current method of transacting with ftc as “Dark” as it is psuedo anon, which is just fine.
But maybe what needs to be developed instead is a real “Light” address…
Maybe simply impliment google/facebook linking… isn’t that the favored way of authenticating identity now days amongst the cool kids?
-
Sorry to flip flop the idea around wrapper but can this be done just as easily?
-
It cannot be done too easily, as it requires a non-negligible amount of coding. I feel bad for cutting work out for other people, since my coding skills are limited to physical simulations in high-level languages. But I think we have to do it before we are forced to do it.
-
There might very well come the possibility that coins will be required to comply or die. Ok, whilst you can’t stop the network they could make it very difficult to develop anywhere other than a handful of countries. Perhaps the solution isn’t one of the other, perhaps it’s both. Perhaps individuals and businesses want anonymity and governments want compliance. I think panoramix is right, at very least they the legislation which is coming will want some sort of KYC, so perhaps the solution is a solution that offers bank like privacy rather than secretive anonymity. I would still like to see it built as a decentralised solution, but with everything compliant they are going to want some bricks and mortar to knock on when they get upset.
Personally I think It’s too big a compromise and it goes against the very ethos of the currency’s concept. But making he technology scary is going to drive it underground where the general public will also be fearful of using it.
-
MrWyrm, when I build a house, I do it under a conditional assumption that it won’t burn to the ground. It is good to keep the possibility of fire in mind, but the house is still built on an assumption it will stand. I have a feeling that coins are our last chance to avoid Sinicization of the Western civilization. Totalist enforcement of centralized banking should be viewed as a disaster that can happen. I am therefore working on an assumption that coins will survive, and the republican governments will survive, too. If we don’t establish a white subnet, governments will do it for us with much less efficiency and will have no qualms about extracting fat tax for their service. If we don’t tackle volatility, same might happen, or worse, we might completely fail to take off.
-
Does this service have to be FTC specific? Essentially it could just be an I’d lookup where you enter an address FTC,BTC or PXC and it will point to the owner if any.
-
Panoramix, thanks very much for your insight, you always give me things to ponder.
-
I’m not sure you could have it public facing. That’s the bit I can’t get my head around.
-
Does this service have to be FTC specific? Essentially it could just be an I’d lookup where you enter an address FTC,BTC or PXC and it will point to the owner if any.
It could be a third party service for any coin and i’m sure someone will come up with one over the coming months.
What we want to achieve with ftc though is full stack.
This means relying on as little 3rd parties as possible by decentralising as much as possible in the BC tech.
I was hoping for a simply way to authenticate a transaction using credentials for FB/Google. Within the wallet, when creating an address, you tie it to an online identity.
-
paypal completes it’s varification using a bank transfer. just a thought.
-
nah…
Social media is good…
Paypal are like… almost worse than the banks… I know google and FB are dataminers but yeah. paypal is used to help add additional verification to fb/google so i don’t think its needed.
We don’t need 100% corporate…
Just something to add an online identity… If we use a major network, then it adds to the security without forcing people to go all the way if they can’t or don’t want to.
Not sure if im making sense… but it could help with having twitter ftc wallets, FB ftc wallets and Google ftc wallets which would tie directly in with their respective tipbots.
I dont know if my crazy idea’s can be achieved with code but we need to think about making it seamless for use. Unless we don’t consider our selfs a currency and focus solely on building on the BC Tech. ie Link/Flux etc…
-
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.
