Cryptocurrency:

[Punk-Stasi 2.0]

On Sun, 07 Jun 2020 12:00:47 +0000
"other.arkitech" <other.arkitech at protonmail.com> wrote:


> > wait, first you said it had 'some obfuscation' but now it's overengineered? =)
> 
> 
> both terms apply. 

	no they don't.

> I think they went beyond with the concept of privacy, and entered in public terrain with privacy concepts.

	your thinking is wrong. 


> 
> 
> >
> > > *I shouldn't be able to link anything to a particular person or group.
> >
> > that makes little sense. Once you 'see all money in circulation' linking the circulation to the users isn't hard. Or by 'all money' you mean just one number for the total supply?
> 
> The public accounting shall be traceable if the money is public money,

	there's no such thing as public money. 'public money' is an euphemism for money stolen by govcorp. 


> provided there is a protection where accounts cannot be traced to people.


	and even if there was such a thing as 'public money', tracing it obviously affects the private side of things. 


 
> E.g.
> you and your friend decide to create a pot. this pot is public for you both, but private for the rest.

	that's not what public means. 

> From your perspective you want the pot movements the in clear, because you share the ownership.
> 

	shared ownership is a weak and problematic concept. 


 
> 
> >
> > > Monero fails the first one, bcs they focused on making it difficult to analyze the money flows, the cash in circulation,
> >
> > monero doesn't fail. On the contrary it achieves something that's much needed.
> 
> fails in the sense they sacrificed public accounting, which motivated me to say it was overengineered, as they brough privacy concepts to an extreme.


	monero doesn't fail, it didn't 'sacrifice' anything and the more privacy the better, so extreme privacy would be extremely good. 

	FURTHERMORE, in monero, there's something called a view key, which allows the owner of an account to make transactions 'public'


> Analogy:
> 
> Massive surveillance is an offence to privacy, right?
> Hidding my account is an offence to me cause I cannot verify my stuff.
> Hidding public accounts is an offence to a required transparency.

	There are no public accounts in the sense you're using 'public' 


> >
> > > and macro-economy parameters that are of public interest.
> >
> > not sure what's that supposed to mean? Which parameters are of 'public interest'?
> 
> e.g.
> I want to sell my bananas, I need to find buyers.
> I want to buy bananas, I need to find sellers
> 
> whatever helps me to achieve this trade that can be considered public, regardles which role I take (seller/buyer)


	so you want private commerce to be 'public'? 


> 
> Or
> 
> This anon guy HIJK is asking for a loan. I see HIJK was loaned before for X amount, and s/he repaid it. I can take the decision of taking the risk or not to contribute to this loan.

	you want global financial surveillance then 

> 
> Provided I cannot trace HIJK with any person, HIJK could be interested is making his credit history public so he increases his chances to find lenders.


	how are you going to keep separate the person from his 'credit history'? 



> monero isn't an 'opaque public system'. It's an accounting system that tries to achieve some of the properties of physical cash. It's 'public' only in the sense that anybody can use it. Which is a basic and required property for money.


> >
> > > The privacy problem coming from having the flow in clear is obvious. Behavioural patterns can be used to identify the person behind.
> >
> > that's just one way. There are other, more direct ways to 'deanonymize' people.


> so far there's a tradeoff between privacy and scalability. But then again, privacy is a fundamental requirement, unless you're promoting systems to further enhance the power of the surveillance state.