Nostr Web Client

these feature would be a great marketing for monero... if only digital scarcity could be preserved when arbitrary printing shitcoin, and if it could not trending to zero agsinst bitcoin (that is also more private if used well due to network effect and plausable deniabilty)...

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

bitcoin will probably have Confidential Transactions before it gets covenants (CATV) in the coming halving cycle... could get both but for sure private transactions have more importance for big bitcoin bankers i think

it's complete nonsense that chain analysis can actually catch very much flows of bitcoin, and wallets are increasingly respecting the "use address only once" mantra

explicitly trying to make it untraceable just makes a certainty about no inflation bugs impossible to be certain about, idgaf what the monaros say about how it can be fucking audited because you can't decode the amounts of transactions so how the fuck could that ever be possible then? ultimately not, that's the point, that's why UTXOs

you can even find references to the question in early discussions involving satoshi where he basically said much the same thing... UTXOs enable pseudonymity and supply audit... obfuscating the amounts breaks this property, and the place where the keys for a UTXO exist physically is unknown until they are already spent

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

anyhow, idk how CTs work exactly, and frankly i don't give a fuck about more privacy than being able to send to addresses that nobody knows where they keys are, that's enough, by itself, so long as your payment recipients don't reuse keys

unfortunately, my bank reuses an address, i should nag them about that, it's very naughty... it does make chainanalysis easier

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

ah yeah, i forgot... CTs don't hide the amount they hide the spend address

when the receiving UTXO spends it does not reveal the prior UTXO linked to it, so it keeps the auditability while further obscuring the link to the spending key of the receiver

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

they will be usable for LN channels too, which means that the spending transaction and the settlement transaction will not be linkable

rafael_xmr 1y ago

bitcoin definitely isn't getting CT before covenants, no one is talking about CT for bitcoin

and CT hides amounts, most bitcoiners are afraid of hidden inflation so they want to see all amounts forever to be sure there are only 21m bitcoins ever being transacted

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

governments not being able to control bitcoin is as important as bitcoin not inflating, because whatever degree of control governments get over bitcoin the first thing they will try to do is inflate it

ponymontana💜⚡ 1y ago

ct seems to me something a bit difficult to obtain trought soft fork, how can a legacy client is supposed to react to a redacted amount?

I think CISA could be more interesting as a base to make every spend a coinjoin and create incentive to mix everyone you can, disrupting eurisptics

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

i don't know the name of the proposal

it just makes it so the spend address cannot be known ahead of time, it doesn't hide the amounts

I don't think there will ever be monero style hidden amount CTs because of the auditability problem, but being able to prevent attackers from knowing what address spending to monitor for is a big advance for privacy

rafael_xmr 1y ago

Oh do you mean MW (mimblewimble) then? It was added to Litecoin as an "extension block" (like a sidechain) and they call it MWEB for MimbleWimble Extension Block

In Litecoin's case they implemented it with CT so it hides amounts but it can be done just as a "mixing" protocol

e8cd2bec... 1y ago

Bitcoin should just add optional MWEB. A turnstile going back to the transparent side would still guarantee supply.

rafael_xmr 1y ago

that is true, but then priorities now should be first mining decentralization, so that no one nation state can control the transactions in blocks and its emission, and then getting consensus for CT or covenants, but still you can ask around and you'll see how most bitcoiners value the auditability as one of bitcoin's most important features as way to "fight" governments to show them how bitcoin is the scarcest asset ever and all that, and then some will also say how privacy should come in layers or something else

So hiding the amounts on-chain transacted make auditing harder, but that's just it, auditing the full supply is still possible it's just harder cryptographic math that proves the amount is valid, rather than telling everyone what amount everyone is transacting between each other

But getting consensus and pushing a change like this to bitcoin at this point would be a big "fuck you" to all governments out there definitely