Chainalysis CTO said blockchain is easier to trace than paper money

Post by mitchdoogle » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 3:26 PM UTC

TigeriusKirk wrote: post #145

throw10920 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is one of the laziest ones that you can make. "No it isn't" is literally the top (least useful) strata of the argument pyramid, provides precisely zero extra information, and doesn't belong on Hacker News.

It's not worth going point by point when there's so many fundamental misconceptions. Best to reject the entire comment. What HN needs is less engagement with useless, time consuming misinformation, and more outright rejection of it.

Post by cowtools » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 3:27 PM UTC

tromp wrote: post #167

cowtools wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect chainalysis is describing some "poisoned output attack" with respect to monero. See: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iABIcsDJKyM The problem is a well-understood but innate limitation to all sender-obfuscating cryptocurrencies.

> limitation to all sender-obfuscating cryptocurrencies Only those that allow sending coins to recipients without their explicit approval. On pure Mimblewimble blockchains, the recipient must sign for receipt and is much less likely to accept poisoned funds.

Post by simiones » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 3:31 PM UTC

sph wrote: post #123

seanw444 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin is traceable due to its very implementation. Unless you know how to use it properly, it's very easy to deanonymize yourself on accident. And once that happens, all the transactions thereafter are easy to follow. Monero, on the other hand, is designed to intentionally be hard to trace history of transactions on.

Yes, I edited it out from my comment because I knew someone would point that out and I didn't really want to go on a tangent about it. I meant it's untraceable by some very narrow definitions of tracing. You'd know that hex address X sent money to Y, but you wouldn't necessarily know that X is John Doe that lives at 1234 Main St., nor you'd be able to tell that, knowing address X, John Doe also owns address Z. With K…

Post by alexb_ » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 3:32 PM UTC

yucky wrote: post #168

soupfordummies wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how it's legal for vendors to actually refuse cash. I get it that there's multiple reasons they wouldn't want to and they can say it's their policy, etc but it's on the paper money itself "LEGAL tender for ALL debts public and PRIVATE". It's like when you hear the stories about people paying debts with buckets of coins. Obviously a huge PitA but technically allowed.

My understanding is that it can't be refused to settle a debt, for instance your restaurant/bar/hotel tab or for paying your car note, mortgage, taxes etc. However, a store owner can choose to only accept bottle caps or conch shells in exchange for their goods if that's what they want to do. If you go up to the register and you tell them you want the widget, you have to pay whatever they're asking in exchange. Doesn'…

Post by maxwell » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 3:33 PM UTC

NegativeK wrote: post #132

soupfordummies wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how it's legal for vendors to actually refuse cash. I get it that there's multiple reasons they wouldn't want to and they can say it's their policy, etc but it's on the paper money itself "LEGAL tender for ALL debts public and PRIVATE". It's like when you hear the stories about people paying debts with buckets of coins. Obviously a huge PitA but technically allowed.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm > Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," states: "United States coins and currency [including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve Banks and national banks] are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." This statute means that all U.S. money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts…