3 ms·

That's because privacy was not a goal of that particular system. Pseudo-anonymity was the goal. (That's unrelated to my point about security and openness though

That's because privacy was not a goal of that particular system. Pseudo-anonymity was the goal. (That's unrelated to my point about security and openness though.)

nl 9y ago
It seems pretty related in this case, since the kind of security that is being discussed here is around access to private data (and I'd note that it was you that used the word security here, not the OP who made the more correct contrast between openness and powerfulness). One could equally make the point that Facebook is secure because no one has hacked their servers, and that it is open because it is free to join. That's a pointless thing to say though. But in any case: yes, there is an inherent tension between privacy and openness.
- ericflo 9y ago
  I should have used Monero as an example instead of Bitcoin, but I thought less people would have heard of it. Privacy can also be achieved with these primitives.
  - nl 9y ago
    That's still not the point though. How do I openly share social information with some people without sharing it with everyone? These principles are in conflict. I did some work way back when FB got popular on the idea of using probabilistic data structures (ie, Bloom filters) to store contact lists, which could then be shared so that (in theory) only people who knew the same people would also know that they knew them. I built a FB app proving this could work technically. But there are clear security issues with it - it gives a veneer of apparent privacy but doesn't stand up to attacks. This is what everyone is talking about and the point you seem to be missing: you can't have this both ways. There is a conflict between privacy and openness. Since you seem fixated on the crypto-payment thing: Monero mostly solves anonymous payments, but then what? Say I want to buy a pair of shoes with it - how do I stop someone knowing where to deliver it? Any attempt at solving this runs into the same problem: you have to tell someone the same thing you are trying to keep secret, and if that person is the attacker then the system falls to pieces.
    - ericflo 9y ago
      We've accepted trusted computing as a society, many phones have a secure element now, and I think this can migrate down to that level. That's the real trade-off: we reclaim ownership of our data with knowledge of where it goes and who's using it for what, but that means a full embrace of DRM (something our community has typically been against.)
      - nl 9y ago
        I'll take that as implicit acknowledgement that the OP's point was correct (DRM of course being the complete opposite of "open"). I agree that could work though.
  - rrdharan 9y ago
    > I should have used Monero as an example instead of Bitcoin, but I thought less people would have heard of it. Privacy can also be achieved with these primitives. Well actually that’s very much still in dispute: https://www.wired.com/story/monero-privacy/ https://www.wired.com/story/monero-privacy/

That's because privacy was not a goal of that particular system. Pseudo-anonymity was the goal. (That's unrelated to my point about security and openness though.)

nl 9y ago

It seems pretty related in this case, since the kind of security that is being discussed here is around access to private data (and I'd note that it was you that used the word security here, not the OP who made the more correct contrast between openness and powerfulness). One could equally make the point that Facebook is secure because no one has hacked their servers, and that it is open because it is free to join. That's a pointless thing to say though. But in any case: yes, there is an inherent tension between privacy and openness.

ericflo 9y ago
I should have used Monero as an example instead of Bitcoin, but I thought less people would have heard of it. Privacy can also be achieved with these primitives.
- nl 9y ago
  That's still not the point though. How do I openly share social information with some people without sharing it with everyone? These principles are in conflict. I did some work way back when FB got popular on the idea of using probabilistic data structures (ie, Bloom filters) to store contact lists, which could then be shared so that (in theory) only people who knew the same people would also know that they knew them. I built a FB app proving this could work technically. But there are clear security issues with it - it gives a veneer of apparent privacy but doesn't stand up to attacks. This is what everyone is talking about and the point you seem to be missing: you can't have this both ways. There is a conflict between privacy and openness. Since you seem fixated on the crypto-payment thing: Monero mostly solves anonymous payments, but then what? Say I want to buy a pair of shoes with it - how do I stop someone knowing where to deliver it? Any attempt at solving this runs into the same problem: you have to tell someone the same thing you are trying to keep secret, and if that person is the attacker then the system falls to pieces.
  - ericflo 9y ago
    We've accepted trusted computing as a society, many phones have a secure element now, and I think this can migrate down to that level. That's the real trade-off: we reclaim ownership of our data with knowledge of where it goes and who's using it for what, but that means a full embrace of DRM (something our community has typically been against.)
    - nl 9y ago
      I'll take that as implicit acknowledgement that the OP's point was correct (DRM of course being the complete opposite of "open"). I agree that could work though.
- rrdharan 9y ago
  > I should have used Monero as an example instead of Bitcoin, but I thought less people would have heard of it. Privacy can also be achieved with these primitives. Well actually that’s very much still in dispute: https://www.wired.com/story/monero-privacy/ https://www.wired.com/story/monero-privacy/