Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Monero

benkaiser.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 394 posts

Re: Why Monero

#381

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

sensei58258 wrote: post #371
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer Zcash's privacy perspective, but one thing I've noticed about using both is the zcash cli wallet is pretty terrible (especially if you're using shielded addresses) and the monero cli wallet is among the most user friendly cli apps that I've ever used. Little touches like that keep making me reconsider the project in a favorable light.

Zcash's privacy perspective seems to be highly flawed because of the way it was implemented though (optional opt-in privacy): https://news.bitcoin.com/not-so-private-99-of-zcash-and-dash... and https://electriccoin.co/blog/new-research-on-shielded-ecosys...

Having the network boundaries be explicitly nonprivate and giving users the ability control when/where/how they negotiate the private/nonprivate boundary seems like a reasonable design choice to me. It makes the network more interoperable with nonprivate networks.

If the whole network private, then the privacy faults can only happen at its boundaries--which are places that the protocol designers have less control over. The alternative is having to wonder about what kind of identifying metadata the exchanges are leaking--and they're an easier target for an adversary.

Also, I have to imagine that the everywhere-private nature of XMR is why I don't see it on my exchange's list, while I do see ZEC there.

But I wasn't talking about that. With zero-knowledge proofs protecting the shielded transactions, your anonymity pool is essentially the entire set of people that use shielded transactions. With the Monero approach, your anonymity pool is large, but it's still a subset of the whole network.

Re: Why Monero

#382

Post by lmm »

Kbelicius wrote: post #369
lmm wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can get coins in other ways What guarantees that this continues to be true? Yes coins that can't be sold are worthless, but coins that can only be sold with KYC aren't. > We are talking about staking oligopolies not about someone buying 10 dollars worth of coins The staking providers or delegatees are the (potential) oligopolies > I did not mention miners but producers of mining equipment. Those are also anonym…

> What guarantees that this continues to be true? Yes coins that can't be sold are worthless, but coins that can only be sold with KYC aren't. This applies to PoW coins too. Miners can't be anonymous if they want to sell their coins. Why would anybody mine for nothing? > The staking providers or delegatees are the (potential) oligopolies Yes, and miners mine in pools. Why are you not considering pools as (potential)…

As I've said repeatedly, it's different because staking means that the same people control both the current coin supply and the means of creating new ones.

A mining cabal can't stop other people from mining, because you don't need anything (other than commodity hardware and an internet connection) to mine. But a staking cabal controls both staking and current coins (by the nature of how staking works), and new entrants need to have coins to stake, so such a cabal can stop other people from staking.

Re: Why Monero

#383

Post by bb88 »

stavros wrote: post #377
bb88 wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you are pro-catching-crime, you're against anonymity, because that's a prerequisite. I'm not sure it is. It seems to me you can be pro-hoodie without being pro-murder. It also appears that being anti-murder doesn't require you to be anti-hoodie. > One salient example is the security theater we have to go through in airports since 9/11, which have eroded the liberty of millions of people and have probably caught…

> It seems to me you can be pro-hoodie without being pro-murder. It also appears that being anti-murder doesn't require you to be anti-hoodie. I didn't say anything about being anti-murder, though. If you're pro-catching-murderers, you must be anti-hoodie, otherwise you catch fewer murderers.

> If you're pro-catching-murderers, you must be anti-hoodie, otherwise you catch fewer murderers.

Maybe, but also there's other options. One might be that more cops on the street would probably have a more powerful effect than banning hoodies say.

So I reject your black and white reasoning outright.

Re: Why Monero

#384

Post by [deleted] »

scoofy wrote: post #50

When you develop a value exchange that is perfectly designed for facilitating human kidnappings and subverting international sanctions, you should not be surprised when other humans decide they value institutions over this level of personal privacy. The narrative that this type of value exchange will protect people is as easily argued that it will put others at risk. We have institutions for a reason, and nobody livi…

[deleted]

Re: Why Monero

#385

Post by SpaghettiCthulu »

user-the-name wrote: post #255
sealaska wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the kind of crime. Some crime is easier with cash. For example, many professional bartenders commit tax fraud every day by not reporting cash tips. This is directly facilitated by paper currencies.

It is not "facilitated" by it, that is just because cash tips are given in paper currencies and not in Monero. If tips were given in Monero, the tax fraud would be even easier.

Uh, why would it be easier?

Re: Why Monero

#386

Post by martin_a »

kybernetyk wrote: post #368
martin_a wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paying taxes also makes sure that when I turn the tap on, there's drinking water coming out of it. I don't think that's a bad use case for tax money.

Like the water in Flint? I’d prefer a private commercial service for that. At least you wouldn’t have to live with contaminated tap water for 5 years because of incompetent government run monopolies.

Third world countries like the US might handle drinking water quality somewhat different, I acknowledge that.

So maybe roads are somewhat easier to grasp. They are paid for by taxes and while you could outsource that to private parties, having to pay a bribe each kilometer seems rather complicated to me.

Re: Why Monero

#387

Post by Kbelicius »

lmm wrote: post #382
Kbelicius wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What guarantees that this continues to be true? Yes coins that can't be sold are worthless, but coins that can only be sold with KYC aren't. This applies to PoW coins too. Miners can't be anonymous if they want to sell their coins. Why would anybody mine for nothing? > The staking providers or delegatees are the (potential) oligopolies Yes, and miners mine in pools. Why are you not considering pools as (potential)…

As I've said repeatedly, it's different because staking means that the same people control both the current coin supply and the means of creating new ones. A mining cabal can't stop other people from mining, because you don't need anything (other than commodity hardware and an internet connection) to mine. But a staking cabal controls both staking and current coins (by the nature of how staking works), and new entran…

> As I've said repeatedly, it's different because staking means that the same people control both the current coin supply and the means of creating new ones.

This is the first time you are saying that, and you aren't explaining how that is relevant to PoS oligopolies. What was said by me and by rtkwe, on this matter, is that due to this characteristic of PoS coins the only way, we can think of (you've ignored both of our posts on this subject so I'm assuming that you agree?), a staking oligopoly can remain oligopoly is by controlling the majority of coins and not selling those coins which in effect means that a PoS oligopolies don't make any money from being oligopolies. In fact maintaining a staking oligopoly would destroy all the money that was invested in creating it.

In my opinion, and I would love to hear yours if you ever read and parse this, that discourages creation of oligopolies since there is no profit in them.

> A mining cabal can't stop other people from mining

They can't stop them from running their machines but they can stop them from producing any blocks that are accepted in to the chain making it unprofitable for anybody not part of the oligopoly to mine. Unlike with staking this doesn't prevent the mining oligopolies from making a profit since it requires no manipulation of the markets to retain their position as an oligopoly.

Re: Why Monero

#388

Post by lmm »

Kbelicius wrote: post #387
lmm wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I've said repeatedly, it's different because staking means that the same people control both the current coin supply and the means of creating new ones. A mining cabal can't stop other people from mining, because you don't need anything (other than commodity hardware and an internet connection) to mine. But a staking cabal controls both staking and current coins (by the nature of how staking works), and new entran…

> As I've said repeatedly, it's different because staking means that the same people control both the current coin supply and the means of creating new ones. This is the first time you are saying that, and you aren't explaining how that is relevant to PoS oligopolies. What was said by me and by rtkwe, on this matter, is that due to this characteristic of PoS coins the only way, we can think of (you've ignored both of…

> a staking oligopoly can remain oligopoly is by controlling the majority of coins and not selling those coins which in effect means that a PoS oligopolies don't make any money from being oligopolies. In fact maintaining a staking oligopoly would destroy all the money that was invested in creating it.

Eh, maybe. I think there's a lot of middle ground between selling freely/anonymously to anyone and not selling at all.

> They can't stop them from running their machines but they can stop them from producing any blocks that are accepted in to the chain making it unprofitable for anybody not part of the oligopoly to mine.

I think/hope that would destroy whatever coin that was, and far more quickly, because there's no way to be subtle about that one - everyone can see blocks being broadcast and ignored. Whereas if every time an outsider tries to buy some coins, their name didn't quite match for KYC and they need to resubmit their documents, or someone else bought them first, or the exchange suddenly needs to freeze all transactions to investigate an issue, you can maintain the illusion of an active market for quite some time.

Re: Why Monero

#389

Post by ajkdhcb2 »

around_here wrote: post #308
ajkdhcb2 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of those points seem invalid to me when you consider that people have the option for custodial multi-signature systems and time-delays etc. If you want certain behaviour you can do it, often without giving a corrupt organisation complete control over your money Further, many people live in countries where the people simply cannot trust their institutions or the value of their currencies, to the point where they a…

You’re just inviting bad actors to work on “probably has a lot of crypto” to beat you silly with a wrench until you give it up. They’ll just go with less certainty.

In an imagined future where well-designed custody systems were the norm, bad actors would realise there's no point because they don't want to be locked in a house torturing someone for 3 days for no payoff

Re: Why Monero

#390

Post by kybernetyk »

martin_a wrote: post #386
kybernetyk wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like the water in Flint? I’d prefer a private commercial service for that. At least you wouldn’t have to live with contaminated tap water for 5 years because of incompetent government run monopolies.

Third world countries like the US might handle drinking water quality somewhat different, I acknowledge that. So maybe roads are somewhat easier to grasp. They are paid for by taxes and while you could outsource that to private parties, having to pay a bribe each kilometer seems rather complicated to me.

Wow much edgy
Post reply on HN