/biz/ - Business & Finance

because bitcoin wasn't out to solve the privacy problem, it was out to solve the money problem. sage for dumb questions

>>51498397
>it was out to solve the money problem
It didn't solve the money problem, because Bitcoin is not money.

>>51498367
monero suits their needs better.

>>51498406
oh my, you're even dumber than i thought

BTC is literally designed to be traceable. Monero isn't.

>>51498443
Money is fungible. Bitcoin is not.

>>51498367
Nobody believes Bitcoin is more private than monero. Even Guy Swann, the guy who gets paid to do Bitcoin audible, admitted that he liked monero more than anything other alt coin.

>>51498476
>Nobody believes Bitcoin is more private than monero

https://youtu.be/_2rqBMy1xSo?t=1153

>>51498367
>>51498406
>>51498439
>>51498459
>>51498473
>>51498476
>It is another episode of xmr baggies seething about king shitcoin

>>51498476
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_ZfusSdyWA

>>51498605

lol if Monero is a scam that makes Bitcoin's inability to hold the darknet even more pathetic lmao

there were actually a bunch of other interesting privacy coins when monero debutted like zcash and shadowcoin/market(which had huge potential as an amazon prime for thr darkweb but the devs rugpulled and changed their vision last minute).
any one of them would’ve beaten monero due to superior tech at that time or more talented devs.
but from what i remember bad things kept happening left and right.
at the end of the day stability>everything else.
doesn’t matter if you have the next big thing if you can’t deliver then it might as well be nothing.

>>51499254
btc was never that secure.
plus techniques for catching people got better and better and centralized exchanges did half the work for the fed&governments jobs.

>>51499854
zcash was killed by coordinated fud from xmr holders
never held zcash, but it was sad, because zcash's anonymity is much better
>cue some retard posting a tweet screenshot

>>51499962
Zcash was killed by being a glow coin.

>>51498562
(((chaumian)))
that's all those lightning fags talk about

>>51500203
that's fud, not reality.
From a technical standpoint it was and is the best anonymity there is.
But you need to understand how zk-snarks work to understand that, and expecting users to be like that is delusional.

>>51500224
>From a technical standpoint it was and is the best anonymity there is.

In theory. In practice it is currently still too new and experimental to be trusted.

>>51498367
The best argument is probably that they were stupid enough to use Bitcoin before Monero became more well known, so their preference is not a true test of security. Monero is certainly galaxies better than Bitcoin, but darknet markets have their fair share of tards.

>>51499962
>never held zcash, but it was sad, because zcash's anonymity is much better

It's not "much better", it wins points for not leaving outputs on the chain like Monero currently does but loses points for leaking the sender's IP address.

>>51500424
what? that's not even the correct layer, the zk-snark system has no concept of 'ip addresses'
how to connect to a system is a completely unrelated issue

>>51500433

We're talking about Zcash, not SNARKs. TX broadcasts aren't shielded like they are with Monero.

>>51500345
the worst failure mode of zcash is stealing
the known failure mode of monero is total retroactive deanonymization either with quantum computers (can't be fixed - ever) or some bug
the fundamental information theoretic difference is that deanonymizing information in zcash doesn't exist at all.
In monero it exists in an encrypted form (ie. secured by ecc + the algorithm that utilizes it).

>>51500446
>TX broadcasts aren't shielded like they are with Monero.
and that's a completely irrelevant gimmick, just use tor if you're worried about your recipient knowing your ip

All maxis for any coin are retarded

>>51499854
I remember the Bitcoin forums being pretty enthusiastic about SpectreCoin (XPEC I think). So many good projects back then.

>>51498367
Because both monero and darknet markets are controlled by the Feds.

>>51500452
>total retroactive deanonymization

lol no, Monero's privacy is modular for this very reason.

>In monero it exists in an encrypted form

Only amounts are encrypted with ZKPs, addresses aren't written to the chain in any way at all, hence wallets having to run an initial scan first.

Furtheremore, zk-SNARKs, unlike zk-STARKs, also are not fully quantum-resistant.


>and that's a completely irrelevant gimmick, just use tor if you're worried about your recipient knowing your ip

lol being able to connect specific IP addresses to TX activity is a MAJOR privacy breach, it gives LE a starting point to go fishing.

>>51500599
>lol no, Monero's privacy is modular for this very reason.
every transactions has a blinded real spending input to prevent double spending
this is what allows full retroactive deanonymization
>addresses aren't written to the chain in any way at all
this is equivalent to only using each address once, it doesn't change much by itself
>Furtheremore, zk-SNARKs, unlike zk-STARKs, also are not fully quantum-resistant.
they are not quantum resistant in the sense you can generate fake proofs (same is true for monero btw) but there's no way to deanonymize zcash with them, while monero gets full broken

>>51500643
>every transactions has a blinded real spending input to prevent double spending
>this is what allows full retroactive deanonymization

1. Double spends are prevented by key images, not ring signatures
2. Determining the true spend still doesn't reveal anything else i.e. addresses or amounts.
3. Once the tech has sufficiently matured Monero will eventually ditch ring signatures for a global anonymity set as per SNARKs/STARKs/etc.

>they are not quantum resistant in the sense you can generate fake proofs (same is true for monero btw) but there's no way to deanonymize zcash with them

great if it actually works, we still don't know if SNARKs can be fully trusted yet, could still wake up tomorrow and discover the entire system is fatally broken.

Which is why Monero's wait-and-see approach is still the least riskiest.

>>51498367
Because Maxis are not anarchists, they want to be governed. BTC has no soul

>>51498406
>because Bitcoin is not money
yes
its better

>>51500871
>1. Double spends are prevented by key images, not ring signatures
yes, and that's what reveals the origin
>2. Determining the true spend still doesn't reveal anything else i.e. addresses or amounts.
what does 'addresses' even mean here. Of course it shows you the spending address. Quantum computers completely destroy ring anonymity.
>could still wake up tomorrow and discover the entire system is fatally broken.
no, because the information needed to deanonymize literally doesn't exist.
The worst possible failure is ability to spend infinitely.

>>51498406
they hated him because he told them the truth

>>51499854
I lost so much money with Verge.

>>51501306
>yes, and that's what reveals the origin

Reveal origin of what? Key images are derived from outputs, which cannot be linked to amounts nor addresses.


>what does 'addresses' even mean here.

hash of the sender's and receiver's public keys


>Of course it shows you the spending address.

lol as has already repeatedly been explained to you: NO ADDRESSES ever touch the blockchain.


>Quantum computers completely destroy ring anonymity.

Ring sigs aren't for anonymity, they're for plausible deniability. And they'll be ditched eventually anyway.

>>51501742
>>Reveal origin of what? Key images are derived from outputs, which cannot be linked to amounts nor addresses.
It reveals the true input in the transaction.
>lol as has already repeatedly been explained to you: NO ADDRESSES ever touch the blockchain.
You are confused. All monero has are one-use addresses. It's fully equivalent to using each address once in bitcoin and other utxo system. They are generated by the sender but that's the real difference.
>Ring sigs aren't for anonymity, they're for plausible deniability.
what? No, that's how anonymity works in monero. There are 16 possible inputs. Without it there are only encrypted amounts.

>>51501433
Kek I haven’t heard that name in years

because Bitcoin isnt anonymous, it’s pseudonymous
the only good hold are pic related and thats it
>monero: true anonymity
>bit: true decentralization
>eth: true dApps

>>51501779
>It reveals the true input in the transaction.

which cannot be associated with addresses or amounts.

>You are confused. All monero has are one-use addresses. It's fully equivalent to using each address once in bitcoin and other utxo system. They are generated by the sender but that's the real difference.

"one-time stealth address" is a misnomer, "stealth output" is more accurate, there are NO addresses anywhere on the Monero blockchain. Go have a look for yourself, they start with either a 4 or an 8.

>what? No, that's how anonymity works in monero. There are 16 possible inputs. Without it there are only encrypted amounts.

Monero's anonymity comes from ZKPs shielding amounts and there being no addresses written to the chain. Ring sigs simply obfuscate which output is being spent.

>>51498397
Has Monero solved the privacy problem then? The last time I checked, you can't stay anonymous without buying the coin. Privacy solutions flexible enough to permit anonymous trades without the rigid requirement to buy a specific coin solve the problem better

>>51499854
Now, we have more of smart contract privacy protocols outperforming privacy coins.

>>51500535
That's new, autistic faggot.

>>51501819
The blockchain, not Bitcoin is pseudonymous. Hence, it's a general problem which is one of the reasons why multi-chain enabling of anonymity is important.

>>51500224
The fundamentals of zksnarks can be quite technical but it's quite interesting to see how Railgun made an impressive application of the technology in building its on-chain privacy system.

Litecoin btfos monero

>>51500224
Arguing about who is better completely detached from reality and focusing on a "laboratory scenario" where you change everything as it actually exists is meaningless. Anything with optional privacy automatically has worse privacy than Monero, there was never anything of value concurrent with Monero's development that was better than it, and every "privacy coin" is now down on the BTC ratio with the sole exception of Monero.

>>51498473
" Money Should Be Fungible

The word fungible refers to a quality that allows one thing to be exchanged, substituted, or returned for another thing, under the assumption of equivalent value. Thus, units of money should be interchangeable with one another."
-- https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/money.asp

>>51502667
https://localmonero.co/ (and https://localcryptos.com/ for other cryptos you might want to buy without KYC)

>>51505813