On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 17:04:56 +0000 Sean Lynch <seanl@literati.org> wrote:
On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 10:41 PM Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 11:39:00 +1000 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
Way back in the beginning I said an ever growing block chain would cause unacceptable costs and inconvenience, and lo and behold, it is causing substantial and ever growing costs and inconvenience.
But look at the bright side! Every single transaction gets recorded and stored, until jesus destroys the universe (it's in the bible). What else can privacy advocates wish for?
Transparency is also useful, and privacy can be built on top of it through the use of, say, Chaumian e-cash backed by a blockchain-based cryptocurrency. It's a lot easier for the issuing organization to prove that it has a certain amount of Bitcoin than a certain amount of gold. E-gold and even one of the gold ETFs have been accused of double-counting.
Well, I wasn't advocating any solution in particular, just making a snarky remark on one of bitcoin's most notable (IMO at least) properties. But since you mention something like e-gold (or similar systems) : yes, I realize they have the same problmes any ordinary bank has - how to make sure they are not lying.
And if you're using Tor to connect to the network and break up your transactions, it's pretty easy to obfuscate, even without ZeroCoin, and ZeroCoin just fixes the whole problem.
I guess it's wait and see for me. I freely admit I'm tad a skeptical about the whole crypto infrastructure... (not even taking 'solutions' like tor into account...)