Well, youre probably going to get at least one "Monero" but I figure I'll say it again. That's the only coin I'll shill because it's the only one worth shilling.

I will add, Mimblewimble as an architecture/scheme is the only thing in existence today that comes close to truly solving scalability issues with bitcoin. You should look into it. I've said this a lot around here, to solve the issues with bitcoin you need to have the same security guarantees as bitcoin without the requirement of keeping any and/or all historical data. Mimblewimble *almost* achieves this. Actually, it does achieve it as originally specified, with the downside that you get absolutely no programmability, no multisig, no time locks, nothing. To get those a trade off was made, and tiny little proofs from each transaction must be kept, called kernels, that are present in all MW implementations to my knowledge and in the reference implementation, Grin. If this issue can be solved while keeping those programmability features, you've got bona fide space money.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

MW is def underrated. Scalable and far more private. Bitcoin should've added it long ago. Litecoin already did all the work.

Beam uses MW and has programmability/multigsig/timelocks etc I think (although I don't know much about it)

afaik multisig is possible on mimblewimble

no programmability = no spam

Yeah I know. So I've been following MW development since before Grin launched, and there's some interesting things about that. The original MW paper specified an interactive protocol with no programmability. It also required absolutely no historical data preservation whatsoever. Andrew Poelstra massaged the cryptography a bit and brought us the MW we know today, which does have programmability, at the cost of needing to preserve a range proof for every transaction forever, which in MW is called a transaction kernel. So you get multisig and all that good stuff (but no scripting, but there are ways to script with it nonetheless) but you lose that very powerful feature of needing only the UTXO set for full security.

I think that feature is the killer feature of MW, it is the trait that allows it to scale to the limit of the trilemma, you don't even need a block size if the chain doesn't grow forever, the block size is limited by a function of block time and network latency and not by transaction size. But we have to have multisig and that kind of stuff to do anything more interesting than plain cash, so here we are. I hope we can figure out how to build something that has both and I can see no fundamental reason why it is not possible.