Cryptocurrency:

[other.arkitech]

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Friday, June 5, 2020 10:26 PM, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks at tfwno.gf> wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Jun 2020 20:02:14 +0000
> "other.arkitech" other.arkitech at protonmail.com wrote:
>
> > I feel a bit sad, bcs nobody cares about USPS, even though it looks like matching all the stuff you say about desirable coins (with the exception of the opening of the source code, which I stated will come after finding angel investor and create dev-community)
> > I believe this is the only mind-blocking anti-feature.
> > Correct me if there is any other major complain about USPS
>
> so your system doesn't have a bloated chain, which is nice. The 'consensus' is handled by voting...based one IP address one vote. But how robust is relying on IP addresses at the end of the day?
>

IPv4 provides unique features no other protocol has. address space is saturated (scarce) and addresses are not cheap. It is a a nice tool for Sybil control


> then what about privacy? The fact that nodes don't keep the history doesn't mean it isn't trivial for anybody to keep a copy of all transactions. So, are you using techniques like, say, those used by monero to hide amounts and senders/receivers?

That's a good one.

tl;dr; planned feature.


Monero, AFAIK, makes it difficult not impossible to trace transactions.
So it adds some obfuscation. If validation nodes are open source at some point in the code they have to do the basic math. Other thing is that this math is done not by all nodes but only some of the nodes. That's the difficulty for a listener node to catch all transactions.

In USPS, as long as the network is big, it makes harder -not impossible- to reconstruct the state from recorded transactions because nodes handle only a fraction of the traffic.

Still, addresses are anonymous, and nodes mix all of them as they arrive, making the equivalent of a big tx with many inputs-many outputs
on every consensus cycle.

Still yes, individual tx can be recorded as they arrive with a trivial patch. This would allow to follow the money across anonymous accounts. And this could lead to potential associations with separate events (e.g. I buy something and then I buy other thing; an observer could find a parallelism using time and sequence to narrow or find out  addresses belonging to me).

I have ideas to tackle these cases which are very real theoretically, although only for a minority of people would result of some real concern (to me is a concern))

To be added in the future, as the concern grows bigger, a mixer implemented as a public algorithm (my name for ~smart contract). With this feature one could use it anytime they can break the potential traceability of their money moves, which is already difficult if the network is big.

Privacy to me falls more on the ability to do real P2P end2end (real end2end) encrypted trades between 2 nodes without awareness of the rest.

Yet


Thanks 4 digging
OA