Proposal “Privacy-Transparency“ (Closed)Back

Title:Privacy first vs transparency first
Owner:GrandMasterDash
One-time payment: 1 DASH (304 USD)
Completed payments: no payments occurred yet (1 month remaining)
Payment start/end: 2017-01-04 / 2017-02-18 (added on 2016-12-04)
Final voting deadline: in passed
Votes: 95 Yes / 473 No / 0 Abstain

Proposal description

On 18 Jan 2016, Evan Duffield proposed a block size limitation increase (see link)[1]: The proposal sought a determination that has dogged bitcoin for some time. The block size was never increased in dash, it was simply a tool to measure MNO sentiment. This proposal is much in the same spirit, to measure sentiment and to send a clear message to the core team.

Previously, Evan Duffield has expressed his view on fungibility (see link)[2]:

  • "I believe the central problem with Bitcoin is that the public ledger, although a remarkable accomplishment, also allows a gross invasion of personal privacy by permanently listing all transactions the users have ever done publicly. I would imagine many groups are working to tie the addresses used to real identities and then following the money around to see what is happening with it.

    There was also a lot of talk recently about tainting coins to check and see if they’re “clean” (note: he means colored coins). I believe that all coins should be considered equal and you shouldn’t mess with the fungibility of the coins themselves."

...and (see link)[3]:

  • "How do you make a stable environment for it without losing fungibility of the individual coins? How do they expose users to privacy-invasive situations and things like that. I was watching and waiting for the Bitcoin team to do something about the fungibility issue but it never happened.
    ....
    With Bitcoin, every transaction is traceable back to the coinbase transaction. What that means is that the coinbase is where the actual coins were created - that's when the miner mined them originally and then they start this path through the network from user to user. You can follow this procession and if at any point a user is identified as owning a specific address it suddenly means that anything they do after that is traceable. If you can identify one of the other addresses after it, you know that they did business with that person. The closer that those two transactions are, the more likely this happened.

    Eventually a lot of these addresses and users are going to be identified. There will be companies selling these data, which is an invasion of privacy and no one wants a system that is susceptible to those types of attacks especially with a global ledger on the internet."

And thus Evan Duffield's Private Send was born.

Since Evan Duffield made these comments, block chain privacy has increasingly eroded. Indeed, dash itself now has an official compliance partner (Coinfirm) that has two-way relationships with various carriers and exchanges and more. (see their relationships with Bisnode / Vodafone)[4]: and (Bisnode / D&B Germany)[5]: Companies like Coinfirm are building advanced tools to uncover the identities and risks associated with transactions. The net result; not all coins are equal.

Additionally, recent events between Coinbase and the IRS have highlighted significant issues regarding block chain transparency.

Dash is now at a crossroads. In order to find a balance between privacy and transparency we must ask, do you want a transparency-first block chain or a privacy-first block chain?

Vote "Yes" if you would like to see dash switch to a privacy-first block chain (permissioned transparency).

Vote "No" if you want to keep dash's transparency-first block chain (privacy via mixing).

Discuss: https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/privacy-first-vs-transparency-first.12057/

Definition:
Dash is an example of a transparency-first block chain, meaning, all transactions can be easily seen (public) and mixing is used to obfuscate.

Monero, for example, is a privacy-first block chain, meaning, all transactions are obfuscated but can be seen with a view key.

[1]: https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dash-birthday-trademark-resolution-blocksize-limitation.7696/

[2]: https://medium.com/@simon/the-bright-side-of-darkcoin-a923facddc3c#.w1boqumbz

[3]: https://www.coingecko.com/buzz/interview-evan-duffield-dash

[4]: https://www.bisnode.com/international/news-and-inspiration/cases/vodafone--db-hungary/

[5]: https://www.bisnode.com/international/news-and-inspiration/cases/forbo--hoppenstedt-360/

Show full description ...

Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?

Submit comment
 
-1 point,9 months ago
I am going to vote no on this one because I think the fact that Dash offers both fully transparent transactions and a protocol-level method for mixing is best. I have created a Dash address in which people can send me all of their tainted coins so I can be complicit and keep them for myself: XmCxaiJXTgVNipJ5iLbyZrMxNrDG5J9m9s
Thanks!
Reply
0 points,9 months ago
If you're happy holding tainted coins then fine, but clearly not everyone wants them. Evan and others have made it quite clear they don't want to receive tainted coins... that's why mixing was added to dash / darkcoin, to try and launder them But it was a bad implementation because there is no way to enforce that only mixed coins are received (only sent). I might be receiving tainted coins against my wish, I can only find out once I've received them (and then returned them), by which time it's too late because the connection has already been made, my name has been damaged by interacting with such people
Reply
1 point,9 months ago
http://www.coindesk.com/ensuring-bitcoin-fungibility-in-2017-and-beyond/
Reply
0 points,9 months ago
I don't like how this is worded. You say mixing is transparency, but the exact opposite is the goal.

Mixing = privacy and transparency = surveillance.

I voted NO because I support MIXING and PRIVACY. I don't care about banks or exchanges at all.
Reply
0 points,9 months ago
That's fine but you can only mix _after_ receiving marked or tainted coins... there simply is no way to block the receiving of marked / tainted coins. By the time you receive them, it's too late, you're complicit in the transaction.
Reply
0 points,9 months ago
The optional mixing privacy system now is susceptible to having payments rejected because they are mixed due to Coinfirm monitoring all transactions. The very effort Dash spent working with Coinfirm has made Dash no longer fungible.

I would suggest the vote change to ask for implementing a mixing 100% of the time solution. Or maybe do the mixing with smarter random denominations so it isn't obvious they are mixed as .1, 1, 10 denominations. The transactions can still be transparent, but then at least every coin will have the same fungibility as any other.
Reply
0 points,9 months ago
I suspect anyone agreeing with Solarminer is at some level also accepting that privacy-first will at some point require a lot more consideration than it does right now... in which case, I urge those people to vote yes for privacy-first.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
It seems to me, there is a dichotomy of opinion between what Masternode Operators want for themselves and what they want for their end-users.

It is my assertion that the majority of MNOs would like to attain a level of privacy that is not granted by default to end-users. How would MNOs respond to scrutiny if companies like Coinfirm sought to uncover their identities and holdings? Or, perhaps, to map ownership of MNs and their voting behaviour? With this in mind, some MNOs are already using scripts to perform delayed voting in order to obfuscate the number of MNs associated to an Operator. Additionally, there has been some research to further anonymize the MN netowrk.

As you may know, dash has both legal and compliance partnerships. How does that work when MNOs are complicit in coin mixing (read "coin laundering")? Ah, good job they are working to further anonymize the MN network.

But end-users, the little guys, they are expected to be transparent first. Companies like Coinfirm come along, they build two-way partnerships with companies like Vodafone and ShapeShift, and they fill in the gaps like the pieces of a puzzle, gradually stripping away any privacy and then selling that data on to other companies and government agencies. That's fine, but let's do that to MNs too and see what happens.

Private Send is fundamentally flawed because mixing can only occur _after_ the coins are received, thereby potentially implicating the recipient. As a merchant, I can't guarantee that incoming coins are clear or tainted, I can only launder them... oops, sorry, I meant mix them.

Is this what we want, a network running on double standards?

Vote yes, vote privacy-first.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
There is a saying : do not fix what is not broken. Currently our network works just fine with its open-ledger and its optional anonymization choice.

Upcoming update 12.1 will both lay the foundation to Dash Evolution and brings radically improved mixing.
Dash Evolution, Instant Transactions, compatability with Bitcoin, all of these advantages will all be unuseable if we were to switch to a privacy-first system.

Vote no to privacy-first.
Vote no to this proposal.
Vote no to harming our current system.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
Perhaps the next vote will be to analyse, to uncover and to profile each and every Masternode Operator... can't wait to see your response to that
Reply
0 points,9 months ago
Good luck......You can start with me first. I should be easy, but I doubt you can do it.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
Does anyone knows what happened to dash.org and dashtalk.org?
They are offline from yesterday.
Reply
1 point,10 months ago
Firstly I have not read all comments on this issue. So excuse me if I missed somthing.
But but this proposal is obviously complete FUD. It is true there there is a difference between complete privacy and obfuscated or mixed coins. Monero is not better or worse than DASH in this aspect (but much worse in the aspect of efficency and performance). Real privacy is only given by systems like ZEC or NAV. And ZEC had already discussions for government backdoors which would completely invalidate their expensive privacy.
Anyways what counts is feasibilty. I cannot see from the proposal how complete provacy should be achieved. The proposal obviously only fuels a community splitting and at this time unnessecary discussion. It is well known that governments will act seriously on complete privacy which will make it difficult for these cryptocurrencies. On the other side the current DASH mixing provides enough privacy to cover payments from non government blockchain analysers. In effect everyone with mixed coins is safe from popping up in any private databases or being connected to specific payments just by blockchain analysis.
Then the proposal does not address how to change or implement complete privacy. Just by saying lets do it nothing is achieved. If complete privacy should be implemented it must also be stated how to do it. For sure there are ways to do it. But that would come with a cost which has to be analysed before raising the question if it shoul be done.
If the proposal would be serious it would address these points: legal and regulatory consequences and feasibility

This is a clear 'NO' vote.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
This is proposal is intentionally neutral on implementation. In the unlikely event this proposal passes, it would hopefully lead to a far more in-depth discussion / consultation regarding it's implementation.

It is my firm belief, the stable and long term successor(s) to bitcoin will posses a handful of core qualities... privacy / fungibility is one of those qualities.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
I already warned grandmasterdash about feasibility.
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/privacy-first-vs-transparency-first.12057/#post-108784
He didnt listen.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
This is how i defined feasibility
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dash-needs-to-implement-shadowcash-technology-and-truly-be-anonymous.10936/page-6#post-108673
Reply
1 point,10 months ago
i find it strange that a certain number of masternode owners vote yes for a switch to privacy-only system that can not support the masternode network they are voting with .. i guess they do not need their masternodes.
Reply
1 point,10 months ago
It's unfortunate that they don't seem to understand any of the principles behind Dash nor the importance of an open Blockchain let alone the technicalities behind making Dash so usable to the average person (which requires an open blockchain - how can you have smart contracts with an obfuscated blockchain?). It's also sad to see that so many people still see Dash's mixing process as somehow inferior, which it isn't. Essentially, because nobody can be certain that cryptonote or Zerocoin whatever they use, are flawless in their execution when you can't check on that execution. You can't see if coins are being inserted into the blockchain, you can't see how many coins there really are - you can only calculate how many there *should* be. This is so wrong, and defeats the whole purpose of a trustless system like Bitcoin -and Dash.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
They obviously asking for the masternode network to switch to the TOR network. They are asking a percentage of the masternode network to reside always reside into TOR networks, so that in case the DASH coin is declared illegal, to be able to preserve the cryptocoin.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
This question has nothing to do with masternodes and TOR. Masternodes simply cannot hide and be useful to the network at the same time. A wallet can use TOR, a wallet doesn't have to be a working part of the network though. They can simply send and receive information randomly, a Masternode has to identify itself.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
really?
Of course masternodes can hide behind TOR while being usefull.
Like all the rest .onion sites are.

https://thehiddenwiki.org/
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
Which they can already do that with our current system : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dash-security-privacy-paper-%E2%80%93-version-0-1-7.12077/#post-109076
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
No they cannot use TOR with the current system.

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dash-security-privacy-paper-%E2%80%93-version-0-1-7.12077/#post-108863

The reason DASH dont work with TOR is because the DASH protocol requires masternodes synchronization and high masternode network rates. TOR is an unstable low bandwitdh network and if a masternode tries to communicate through TOR where it also regularly change its IP, then this TOR enabled masternode will be considered as disconected form the rest DASH network.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
Besides, the poll is about if we want a privacy-first block chain, not if we want to hide our masternodes behind the TOR network.

A switch to a privacy-only system will make it impossible for masternodes to verify their collateral of 1000 Dash to the network (as will be anonymized automatically under a privacy-only system).
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
Are you sure that a switch to a privacy-only system makes impossible for the masternodes to verify their 1000 Dash collateral.

Can you proove your claim mathematicaly?

Anyway I never liked the collateral. I think every masternode should be able to vote without being forced to have a collateral, as long as by being online it supports the network and this is the main function of the masternode.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
A perfectly understandable view for someone who doesn't own a single Dash and who clearly doesn't understand the value that the collateral of the masternodes brings to Dash and its network.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
What do you prefer? To have people that own a lot of Dash but have a few network nodes? Or to have people that own no dash at all but they maintain many active network nodes?

I think what matters is the network itself. WIthout network nodes, the cryptocoin is dead.

The network service is the ultimate service for any cryptocoin and should be appreciated without prerequisites (like collaterals e.t.c.).
Reply
-2 points,10 months ago
Nowdays whoever mix coins, his wallet is marked by Coinfirm as suspicious.
The problem I see with mixing is that all mixing coins will be declared illegal one day.
So there is no half transparency half privacy thing.
Either you are full transparent, or full private.
The community must choose.
Reply
1 point,10 months ago
I know you are trying to argue for privacy first however your logic is flawed. If mixing it is declared illegal one day and is not accepted by businesses then OBVIOUSLY opaque block chains will also be declared illegal and suffer the same fate.

In fact, the argument that mixing maybe to clear illegal one day actually argues for dashes model because in that case the queen can still go mainstream using its transparency features exclusively whereas OPEC block change will be relegated to dark markets in illegal activity only.

My opinion this choice is obvious
Reply
1 point,10 months ago
Ugh. This forum really needs a delete comment feature. See the proper English below:

I know you are trying to argue for privacy first however your logic is flawed. If mixing it is declared illegal one day and is not accepted by businesses then OBVIOUSLY opaque blockchains will also be declared illegal and suffer the same fate.

In fact, the argument that "mixing maybe declared illegal one day" actually argues for DASHs model because in that case the coin can still go mainstream using its transparency features exclusively whereas opaque blockchains will be relegated to dark markets and illegal activity only.

My opinion this choice is obvious.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
Your logic is flawed.

OPAQUE BLOCKCHAINS CANNOT BE DISCOVERED.
So even if they are declared illegal, there is no problem.
BUT BLOCKHAINS THAT ARE HALF TRANSPARENT-HALF OPAQUE they will be discovered. Because if half the blockchain is tranparent, someone can discover the rest that it is opaque.
Reply
2 points,10 months ago
True, what is inside an opaque blockchain can not be discovered, but everybody knows which coins use such blockchains. In your doomsday serario where mixing is illegal, coins with opaque blockchains, say Monero, would just be outright blacklisted. Businesses don't need to see the contents of a blockchain to just refuse to accept ANY transactions with the coin. Hence such coins would be relegated to illegal markets only.

DASH on the other hand could still survive in the mainstream in this senario (which I consider rather unlikely) as it could still be used transparently. That is my point.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
The Buisnesses if they know that they can sell without beeing discovered, then they will do it. Buisnesses dont care if something is illegal or not. They only care if someone is capable to discover the inegality.

So buisnesses like the opaque blockchain, as long as they are 100% sure that their transactions into this blockcahin cannot be discovered.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
"They only care if someone is capable to discover the inegality."

They only care if someone is capable to discover the illegality.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
Dash currently has a wallet that contails the full blockchain and provides optional privacy through choosing to mix your funds so that it gets obfisquated and thereby anonymized.

Dash Evolution will be a different wallet that is under active development, a preview can be found here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7T-a2xm5c0&index=2&list=PLiFMZOlhgsYJPIiG0bjT1_SuT5h7NqPCC

Dash Evolution will be a SPV wallet containing only a small part of the blockchain and will have two sort of accounts,
a Public account that people can use to sent transaction publicly and a Private account that will have active mixing on default and will be very fast because of its default setting on active automatic mixing.

Now i still have some questions with those two streams (the public stream and the private stream and how exactly they can interact with each other), but it will enable Users and Merchants to choose to either use public accounts or private accounts (which will have active automatic mixing on).

If we change that system into a private-only centered cryptocurrency we can say goodbye to all the above as it is not supported in a privacy-only system. The Masternodes will always need to verify their collateral to the network, they also need to be pinged on the IP address and InstandSend will simply not work in a privacy-only system and that system will make it impossible to verify certain conditions to the network.
Reply
-1 point,10 months ago
Please see my reply to TanteStefana below, see what you think. In short, currently the blockchain only offers Full Privacy or Full Transparency - there is no true middle-ground built into the protocol and in my opinion there needs be this option.
Reply
1 point,10 months ago
Please correct me if I am wrong in any of this - the votes so far have concerned me a little - but maybe some people have MANY masternodes to vote with.

Dash sells itself as digital cash by offering the 'features' of cash.

When paying with cash, only me and the person I'm paying knows who I am. Even then I can still pay for goods without divulging my personal details to that person or business for most everyday purchases. When paying with cash, there is no record of where the cash I am using originated from or what it was used for previously. The purchasing habits of others before me who used the cash is not a inherent of that cash 'token' and has no ties to me.

For most purchases, when I go into a shop and buy something with cash, the seller doesn't need to record who I am and where my money has come from for AML/KYC purposes (at least not where I live) before they can accept the purchase.

Its the business that needs to record sales and purchases in their own ledger, no matter what 'currency' they use or accept - it's not the job of the currency to record that. If a customer pays using a digital currency then there should be a record of the purchase recorded at the businesses end. Alternatively, if the business wishes to make a purchase with digital currency then they will have a record in their digital wallet or in their purchasing system - recorded the same as if they had made a purchase using cash.

Cash has no inherent ledger built in to the cash 'token' nor is there an inherent ledger built into the buyer handing over that cash, so why do people automatically think that a 'token' on the blockchain has to have a traceable history in the blockchain and not as part of a separate business ledger?

I believe Dash can have a 'private' blockchain by default and still gain widespread adoption. My opinion is that the privacy features inherent in blockchains like Monero and Zcash will actually be the future of crypto currency and Dash could steal the show by implementing this.

My opinion ends there, because the truth is that the idea that a blockchain needs to be so transparent that all business transactions made in that digital 'token' need to be visible on the actual blockchain - so it's traceable back to a buyer and also divulges where a digital 'token' was used previously, all to gain mainstream adoption and to satisfy AML laws, is poppycock. Cash itself is proof of that. If it isn't proof then how are businesses still accepting cash with no automatic ledger built in?

I like Dash, it has great features. An important part of why I invested in Dash was because I wanted to use a digital currency that offered cash like features that protected my privacy like cash.

For me, if being 'transparent' means that the Dash blockchain needs to give up my privacy in a way that cash does not and that businesses will not accept my Dash if it doesn't have a trail that can be followed or because my coins are somehow tainted by previous use, then Dash cannot be seen as a 'Cash' alternative that provides the fundamental features of cash.
Reply
1 point,10 months ago
You make some good points and that is one of the best defences of the "privacy first" case I've seen. But you omit to mention the huge elephant in the room which represents the fundamental difference between cash (at least as in the ‘legal tender’ kind) and crypto which is that cash is “backed” money. It is issued by a bank and backed by government debt.

So it doesn’t have to be “linked” to a history because it comes with a guarantee of 3rd party endorsement.

In cryptocurrency, the value is endorsed by the *non-holders*. i.e. the section of the population that do not posses private keys to the blockchain (because they form the bid side of any market, whether that be in the form of products or other currencies). Your “privacy” is not their concern. Transparency and authenticity is.

Even a lump of gold has to be provably “linked” into a broader continuum by virtue of a shared atomic number. Ok, it doesn’t contain the transaction history, but that isn’t why it has value. It has value because it worked as a “physical bitcoin” in the sense that its properties were transparent enough and symmetrical enough to prove its membership of the Ag atomic Nº 79 continuum. (By symmetrical I mean that exactly the same set of auditable properties were available to holders and non-holders alike).

Also, bitcoin is now 7 years old and has demonstrated that it works as anonymous cash - even without enhancement. If you know 1 of my addresses (because you received a payment from it) you cannot know any of the other ones because that information is not available to you in the blockchain. You need recourse to off-chain information. Obfuscation privacy is the domain of record keeping, not of monetary assets who’s value is in fact optimised by the exact opposite - maximum transparency.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
*quote*
You make some good points and that is one of the best defences of the "privacy first" case I've seen. But you omit to mention the huge elephant in the room which represents the fundamental difference between cash (at least as in the ‘legal tender’ kind) and crypto which is that cash is “backed” money. It is issued by a bank and backed by government debt.

So it doesn’t have to be “linked” to a history because it comes with a guarantee of 3rd party endorsement.
*end quote*

Correct me if I am wrong. What you are essentially saying is that because crypto currency is not backed by government or issued by a bank then it's transactions need to be transparent for the whole world to scrutinise to be endorsed by 3rd parties?

I do not agree that the whole world needs to be able to see my transactions on the blockchain for the blockchain to be endoresed by 3rd parties. I beleive there is some middle-ground that can be found.
Reply
1 point,10 months ago
You shouldn’t look at them as “your” transactions. It implies that you’re working with a record keeping archetype which - if you were - would be worth far less. (i.e. the difference between the “safe” and the “gold”).

Your financial privacy is your responsability, not the blockchain’s. The blockchain’s role is to maintain value. So the question isn’t whether a public or private ledger is more private, the question is which is more valuable. If you hold a private key to a public resource so that that resource can only be deployed with your consent than your private key will be far more valuable than a private key to a private resource.

The point of the “backed-unbacked” comparison I made is that you’re argument makes 2 fundamental assumptions which are unreliable - 1. that ‘obscurity’ is a monetary property (it isn’t) and 2. that it adds value to a monetary asset (it doesn’t).
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
By the way - re. your remark about "middle ground". The optimal middle ground is to decouple the problem of privacy from the priority of maximum transparency. In monetary tokens that is conventionally done by making each token as similar as possible to every other without recourse to obscurity - exactly the solution that Dash is pursuing.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
*quote*
"My opinion ends there, because the truth is that the idea that a blockchain needs to be so transparent that all business transactions made in that digital 'token' need to be visible on the actual blockchain - so it's traceable back to a buyer and also divulges where a digital 'token' was used previously, all to gain mainstream adoption and to satisfy AML laws, is poppycock."
*end of quote*

Not all business transactions need to be visible, i'm not sure where you get that from.

Dash has an open-ledger system like Bitcoin but also has optional privacy on core level for those users that want it or need it. This means users and businesses can choose to either transact Dash anonymously or transact Dash publicly on the blockchain.

What this proposal / poll from OP proposes is to either :

* keep this system which he calls "dash's transparency-first block chain (privacy via mixing)" which is confusing as hell for readers but is in fact our good old open-ledger system with optional privacy
(which means you vote No)

* or have a privacy-only system like Monero / Zcash where every transaction will automatically be hidden and anonymous, bye bye choice and bye bye mainstream adaption
(which means you vote Yes)
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
Thanks for the reply qwizzle.

Maybe the OP proposal is not very clear, I agree.

*quote*
Not all business transactions need to be visible, i'm not sure where you get that from.
*end of quote*

I wasn't implying that all business transactions did need to be visible, I said "the idea", meaning that that is what some people and businesses believe is somehow true.

You say that privacy is optional, but if businesses refuse to deal with customer who choose to send payment that are not public then it no longer becomes optional (hypothetical I know, but a real possibility)

Companies already publish their financial results but no company I know publishes their finances at such a granular level as this and even if they did, is the blockchain the correct ledger to use for that?

I would envision a future where a Monero-like or a Zcash-like algorithm is used on the blockchain BUT with the option to disable and remove the option for mixing or allow the option to mix by default.

If Dash was being designed from scratch today, post Zcash and Monero, I expect that the ledger would be private by default.
Reply
1 point,10 months ago
To me, the only "company" that would want their transactions visible would be charities, political campaigns, things like the Dash Foundation/core team, etc... who want to prove they're not wasting or running off with the coins.

Everyone else would probably like privacy and it would be nice if one of Evan's past visions, one of wallets automatically mixing except when asked not to, came to pass.

The main point here, the only problem I have with other solutions like Monero and zcash etc... is that you can not AUDIT the blockchain. You can't see anything, and can't go through it to verify the inputs and outputs / coins created etc... equal what is expected. Without that, it's NOT trustless. Even if you want to put all your faith in the math, there are so often bugs and loop holes found, how can you be sure none exist? Or will pop up in the future?

And finally, Dash aims to be user friendly and provide bank like services that are actually, nuts and bolts wise, smart contracts. You can't do that, as far as I can tell, with an obfuscated blockchain. So if Dash were to throw all the babies out with the bath water in order to implement zcash or bitwhatever, it would be nothing different from Monero or zcash or whatever. We already have those, who needs another?
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
You make some good points here regarding auditing - I agree with you on that part.

*quote*
And finally, Dash aims to be user friendly and provide bank like services that are actually, nuts and bolts wise, smart contracts.
*end quote*

This is where I believe the problem lies between privacy and transparency. Currently, the blockchain is either outright privacy or no privacy on a transaction. The blockchains we see today are in their infancy and we are trying to make Dash user-friendly but building on an underlying blockchain that is not yet mature enough to offer the best of all worlds.

I'm throwing an idea out here - Let's assume that I agree that the 1st-tier of a blockchain (as the blockchain is today) is the correct place to keep a public company ledger/record for the whole world to see. I think that that is far too transparent for most companies, but lets just assume. What if a company wishes to have it's transactions on the blockchain private, but also would like to "unlock" transactions for transparency reasons if required. Maybe the original transaction could have another key embedded that allows only those with this other key to view the transactions, say for an accounts or auditing team to view for example. Is that possible at the moment with current blockchain technology? No, but surely it should be possible. Currently no crypto-currency I know allows this yet (Something built on Lisk or Ethereum?!).

This could obviously be some sort of feature the 2nd-tier of the blockchain (or DAPI tier in Dash) could be used for to potentially interface with the 1st-tier to "unlock" a companies private transactions with the other "key" on those transactions. This way, you could have a private blockchain by default that has transactions that can only be unlocked by the sender or receiver of the transaction. Again, I'm just throwing out an idea here which would obviously need the 1st-tier to evolve to support. Now all that may seem very convoluted at this point in blockchain technology, but it isn't unfeasible and I'm convinced it will be a feature of blockchain technology in the future.

So, wrapping it up, this means you wouldn't need your 1st-tier of the blockchain to be totally transparent to the whole world.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
I see you using the word “companies” quite a lot.

I think we must bear in mind that the commercial world works on credit. “Companies” that regularly trade with each other have accounts and settle at the end of each months. That will continue to be the case even if their trades are denominated in cryptocurrency units.

The records of those credit transactions will form the “money” and hence the subject of privacy concerns. The blockchain won’t have anything to do with it other than to provide a basis for denominating the trade and potentially fulfil some kind of settlement function that is so removed and consolidated from the original trades that its transparency will have no bearing on individual “companies” privacy. It will be like watching a blockchain transaction will be like watching a shipment of coal arrive at the harbour - you’ll have no idea who it’s for unless you have access to the commercial transaction records that procured it.

Even if you followed its journey thereafter you’d be none the wiser because the shareholders in the vendor and purchasor parties were so far removed from the visible settlement transaction that they’re firewalled off from it. Further, fact that we can identify addresses for consolidated holdings (such as exchanges etc) isn’t bad - it’s GOOD. It’s evidence of economic activity that supports the value of the blockchain - like seeing those coal shipments pass through the harbour.

If crypto is going anywhere, thats the future and it’s also why we should not be introducing any level of obscurity whatsoever (other than minimising the distinction between addresses) into the blockchain. It has no useful purpose other than..well.. to “obscure”.
Reply
1 point,10 months ago
Aside from the known fact that my point of view is to have a transparent blockchain and option to keep my wallet private, I was just thinking that none of the Evolution features would be possible if we had an obfuscated blockchain. I don't think smart contracts will ever be possible with an obfuscated blockchain??? I mean, please correct me if I'm wrong. This just occurred to me, so I'm not sure...?
Reply
1 point,10 months ago
I truly hope this passes with a resounding "YES" for a Privacy-First outcome.

However, even if it does - I really doubt that will change anything. While Dash does have a Distributed Governance By Blockchain (DGBB) system for the treasury, it is only used for activities such as marketing, overhead, business development and legal. It is not used to guide protocol level changes.

Charles Hoskinson identified this in his detailed report on the Dash DGBB and spoke about a protocol specific DGBB in his PodCast on the Cryptoholics interview here: http://www.cryptoholics.com/cryptoholics-ep01/

Far less than half of the Master Node Owners vote, and there is a large percentage of votes controlled by Dash core. They vote only when things are going against the direction they want - so you can expect they will be watching this vote closely.

So, the problem is two-fold; First, the Master Node ownership is not well enough distributed. Second, Dash Core does not have to follow if there is a "YES" vote on this proposal, because it doesn't cover protocol changes.
Reply
1 point,10 months ago
Going to privacy-first blockchain would mean no mainstream adoption. You have to have transparency if you want to have any chance of interfacing with the real world. The partnership with Coinfirm was a great move by the core team. It allows companies that are required to follow strict AML/KYC to work with us. It was going to happen no matter whether we announced it as a partnership or not. No company needs permission to spy on a public blockchain, it's just that we took advantage of this and spun the story as a positive for our network, in which I believe it is, as it takes us one step closer to mainstream adoption.

It's important to note that this partnership does not require any protocol changes, so everyone can still preserve their privacy using privatesend if they want to.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
One of the criteria of Coinfirm used to judge a Dash adress is:
"Address not part of a Mixer (Anonymizer) "
How this complies with Dash?
If you use anonymizer, then your Dash address is suspicious according to Coinfirm.
Reply
1 point,10 months ago
If a centralised service has a problem accepting mixed coins then they would have a problem accepting coins that are totally anonymous. If you want to use a service that has rules such as "no mixing" then you will have to decide how badly you want to use that service.
Reply
1 point,10 months ago
The golden rule for unbacked monetary assets: More transparency --> More value. Less transparency <-- Less value.

Why ? because the section of the market that supports the value isn't the holders, it's the non holders.

Dash therefore has the perfect balance: transparency for non-holders and plausible deniability for users supported by a supreme level of fungibility that bitcoin can only dream of.

The current balance of priorities is the right one.
Reply
1 point,10 months ago
Primary goal is a decentral paypal. This goal can only be archieved with a "transparency-first" chain.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
I do not agree with OP's opinion that Dash is now at a crossroad due to the recent events between Coinbase and the IRS and also the title is pretty misleading when you look at what is asked masternode owners to vote over.

Privacy is and will always be a core-element of Dash that is optional to use for its users. Our current system allows close compatability with Bitcoin, making it much more easy to integrate Dash as payment option there where Bitcoin is already accepted by merchants and exchanges and it is vital for Dash aim to become mainstream useable.

Changing our privacy system to a privacy-first and thereby sacrificing our ability to go mainstream with Dash is backward thinking. Currently Dash has and open-ledger system like Bitcoin while also offering privacy at core-level as a choice. This means that Dash already has both privacy and transparancy, so this whole budget proposal and the discussion is pointless.

I'm therefore voting No to this proposal.
Reply
2 points,10 months ago
Is that definitely true regarding sacrificing our ability to go mainstream if Dash were to go Privacy first?

If the 'market' decides that it wants a privacy first type coin then 'Mr Market' is always correct.

I'm dissapointed to see Monero's growth outpacing Dash on coinmarketcap.com, but this seems to be the market's verdict at the moment.

I am a long term holder/believer in Dash, but I have to be honest and say that I am considering hedging into some Monero too.

I am abstaining from voting on this matter until I feel I have sufficient information and I look forward to insightful comments and discussion here.
Reply
1 point,10 months ago
Just because some coin pumps past you on coinmarketcap.com for a while doesn't mean it has the fundamentals to capture a bigger marketshare. All it means is that somebody decided to pump it to gain more bitcoin - not more monero.

It's happened with Bitshares, NEM, Steem, NxT, Dogue, Paycoin - you name it. I don't think that's a major criteria at the moment.

Another thing. Monero got its "pump" through capturing some Dark markets. But there is a fatal flaw in valuing that event too highly. Products can be market-specific. Money can't because it's not worth anything in one market sector unless you can spend it in another. Dash already came to that realisation over a year ago and did something about it. Lets not turn back the clock now.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
The reality is.. that core would never agree to such a re-write in any event. So from that perspective this vote/poll has little relevance anyway.

However, drawing these detailed responses from you guys has great value as it helps us clarify our thinking Dash's objectives and strategic direction.
Reply
1 point,10 months ago
Our core-elements like InstantSend / quorum grouping will only work on our current open ledger system, going over into a privacy-only system will undermine that and will therefore undermine Dash ability to go mainstream.

It is perfectly fine to invest in other cryptocurrencies, be my guest. It is however not fine to have to totally rewrite our Dash code and our current system just because one of our competitors got ahead in marketcap.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
All good points. Thanks.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
I'm gonna sleep on it and vote tomorrow. (Probably.)
Reply
1 point,10 months ago
You're right tho, Instant Send is our best USP.
Reply
-1 point,10 months ago
Personally I don't think this vote is fair, I would like an "Evolution First" block chain.

Pablo.
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
What do you mean by "Evolution First"?
Reply
2 points,10 months ago
Maybe 'Evolution NOW!' Would be nice..... (lol.) ;-)
Reply
0 points,10 months ago
Is this a blockchain?
Reply