Avatar
Hanshan
f985d309197c805e1719c73185b574fc3ee407d7c1b6157dee99c6ace2599bbb
People improve through making mistakes. Free people make their mistakes faster. Nostrich since 761114.

If only maxis were so demanding when it comes to auditing the gettxsetoutinfo function.... đŸ˜„

It is good to be intellectually consistent.

It is not plausible to suggest zero knowledge proofs are unreliable because "they are younger"

They've been around since the 80s and are well understood.

People have been talking about adding them to bitcoin since forever. I'm not aware of *anyone* who is opposed because they're skeptical of their mathematical properties.

Here Hal discussing them back in the day.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-pioneer-hal-finney-talks-zero-knowledge-proofs-newly-surfaced-video

Ill see if I can find a braindead explanation of rangeproofs or Pedersen commitments.

In the meantime here's the wikipedia on commitment schemes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commitment_scheme

He is precisely correct.

A monero transaction must prove no its inputs and output equal zero to meet consensus agreements.

We can prove that without knowing the amounts involved because of zero knowledge proofs.

This isn't rocket science,you are already trusting more complicated maths using bitcoin.

Yall are incorrect that there is significantly more trust than you already put in bitcoin.

Range proofs have been around for a looong time and are well understood.

you audit the gettxoutsetinfo code yourself?

or do you *trust* the community to do it for you?

For one, Im willing to bet you have NEVER personally verified the BTC supply and just trust someone elses code to do it

And two, it's possible to mathematically prove that something is so, WITHOUT actually revealing what the factors are.

Like we can prove that the sum of the inputs and outputs of a tx are zero. Without showing the amounts.

There are some Proof of Reserve schemes that people have been kicking around for a while. That would be hard proof that the mint has the BTC (or whatever).

Also Calle has this Proof of Liabilities scheme.

https://gist.github.com/callebtc/ed5228d1d8cbaade0104db5d1cf63939

Ideas... none of them are implemented anywhere yet as far as I know.

"privacy is coming" is the cope.

Ive been having these arguments for over 7 yrs and its always "privacy is coming."

There is nothing that comes close to monero privacy guarantees and that's a fact.

furthermore, if you do NOT have protocol level privacy there will ALWAYS be centralization/custodial tradeoffs.

There is no Zerolink CJ operational st the moment.

JM cjs have been unwound and wasabi sucks.

So no, there isnt a good CJ option atm.

Receiver privacy on LN is non existent and even sender privacy is subjective since LN can be highly centrlaized.

"proxy node" isnt a thing.

iow, there arent any tools on bitcoin that obfuscate the sender, receiver and amount.

agree with no-KYC though.

no KYC only 👍

You need to make an coherent argument for a solution.

Are you trying to make a case for Mutiny being private LN payments?

Are you saying enuts is not custodial?

Do you know the point you are trying to make?

Atomic swaps are a thing. So no there is no risk.

And its nice to theorize about how great ecash will be when its not battle-tested.

As it stands, you have to immediately swap out to you own mint or to LN becasue we cant trust the mints.

All of your "solutions" have considerably more friction that just having a stack of monero you use for private payments.