Big problem with the monero community:
When a flaw like this is pointed out that exemplifies a huge hole in monero's vaunted receiver privacy, many monero bros play a semantic game and focus on whether it counts as tracing or not. Which, by the way: shiw me a definition of tracing where this doesn't count.
show of hands
who thinks that in a payment system *the sender knowing the destination of their payment*
is called "tracing the payment"
and I'm just being a butthead?
I'll refer you to Merriam Webster
def 2A
The commonly accepted definition in this context (payment tracing) Is "to follow or study out in detail or step by step"
Which is absolutely NOT what is happening here.
The sender has an address and a derived hash that appears on chain that are provably linked. There is no "study on detail" or working it out "step by step".
Ie, no "tracing."
if you tell me your address and I send you a letter, did I "trace you"?
ffs.
the sender knows where the payment goes. period. no tracing involved.
as you say, its not ideal.
But you don't mind making it *sound as if* "tracing" is happening now do you?
which is the point of using the words you do.
As if you could follow the trail of funds through the chain...
which you cant.
and also
fuck you for the "he didn't talk about what *I* wanted to talk about. so monero bros are disingenuous"
as if we haven't litigated it to death before.
just stop calling it "tracing"
:s/bros/clowns/ other than that, spot on 🎯
