Proposed anonimity feature : The Dark Blockchain
-
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.
-
… 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…
This idea is growing. I like it.
If we can increase anonymity whilst still been able to be fully transparent, I can’t see a problem with it. As long as we have a secure way for the gov to audit our dark transactions, then we have a winner.
-
http://www.coindesk.com/australian-bitcoin-industry-unhappy-tax-office-issues-guidelines/
Personal and business compliance
To comply, Australian tax-domiciled businesses and individuals involved in bitcoin transactions will be required to keep records of:
(a) dates of transactions;
(b) the value in Australian dollars as listed on a “reputable online exchangeâ€;
© the purpose of the transaction; and
(d) who the other party is (a bitcoin address will suffice).Australia has just issued tax guidance on how it plans on regulating bitcoin… Specifically…
Titled Tax treatment of crypto-currencies in Australia â€" specifically Bitcoin, the four-page guideline document is a “general in nature†draft version only, and not yet legally binding.
So if there’s a way we could implement a super easy way for people to comply with the first quote, then I can see people opting for ftc over btc simply because we make it super easy for them to declare tax with their accountant or respective government.
-
Build in some kind of export function in the Qt…
-
Hi,
Name suggestion - Batcoin - because they fly in the dark.
Hmm. maybe too close to Bitcoin.
Cheers
Dave
-
Hi all,
OK - so I’ve just caught up on the conversation over the past few days. I’m a little bit confused so maybe I can recap and see if I have got what is being proposed?
Changes
-
The blockchain stays as is, a public ledger showing all transactions, values, etc - So no dark blockchain (encrypted, mixing, etc).
-
Add the ability to have a white address. A white address links to and identifies a “standard” address (Name, Address? facebook account? twitter?).
-
At the same time we reuse the tech for 2) to add the ability to have an encrypted “dark address”. This encrypted address would replace the “standard” address in any blockchain transactions. Only the address on the blockchain would be encrypted, so amount, txid would remain the same, hence no additional double spend issues.
3a) When dark addresses are created, an associated dark address “viewkey” (to borrow from Monero-speak) would be created. This viewkey could be sent to a third party for auditing purposes (e.g. accountant, government, etc).
Proposal
The proposal is to create (and publicly launch?) a new coin as a testbed for the above, and once properly tested and debugged, incorporate the features of the new coin back into feathercoin.
Is the above correct?
Initial thoughts/issues/questions (again I am still learning the specifics of exactly how blockchain transactions work).
-
What would the white address consist of (actual realworld name/address, facebook account, or could be many different things)
-
Would the new coin be launched publicly and traded? or be a private experiment. Risk for real world launch would be that it would take the place of FTC?
-
Would we have one “dark address viewkey” per dark address created, or one for many dark addresses created?
-
Handling of change addresses, for dark transactions, would the client automatically create dark change addresses when transactions are made?
-
Ability to sign a message using a dark address?
Cheers
Dave
-
-
Yeah that pretty much sums it up so far!
I’m in favour of the white address. As far as I’m aware it would just be a separate website/service that would contain an address/multiple address which point or are associated with a real world person.
So in theory you could look me up the the “feather pages”(do you have yellow pages?) and find my address and send me a tip or whatever. This could be a global address book integrated into the wallet? Or just a website.Does this sound about right?
-
I would call it an Audit Key.
I think dark address are 100% all go provided it is easy to generate an Audit Key to supply to gov/tax accountants or say if an organisation is accused of wrong doing. *cough* gox *cough, cough*
We could build a global address book on the website I think. But there’s no reason a search function couldn’t be built into the Qt
But yeah that sounds right… I think that’s where this idea is heading.
-
Sorry, I’m late . I agree the dark blockchain , willing to join the work.
