4 ms·

I agree, but the main point of an e-krona is exactly to try and reduce that risk. One of the proposed goals is to have non-traceable transactions. Seems unreal

by tjoff 8y ago

I agree, but the main point of an e-krona is exactly to try and reduce that risk. One of the proposed goals is to have non-traceable transactions. Seems unrealistic to me but that would be the holy grail.

zzzcpan 8y ago
Untraceable anonymous transactions is the minimal requirement for it not to be harmful and dystopian.
- tjoff 8y ago
  I agree, but unfortunately I don't believe a society being run by humans would ever implement that. The leaders will not tolerate that kind of loss of control.
  - ellius 8y ago
    It also probably makes counterfeiting and fraud an enormous problem.
  - sparkie 8y ago
    It has already been implemented (Bitcoin, Monero etc), and is improving gradually. The control freaks who would not like to tolerate it think they'll be able to tame it, but Bitcoin is like the Hydra - it gets stronger with every unsuccessful attack attempt. It's better for them to bury their heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist in order to not bring attention to it. When they eventually lift their heads out of the sand they'll find that the world has moved on without them.
    - tjoff 8y ago
      Bitcoin is neither anonymous nor untraceable. Replacing cash with bitcoin would be a nightmare.
      - sparkie 8y ago
        It's not there yet, but eventually Bitcoin will be near enough anonymous and untraceable via the use of the Lightning Network, sidechains, CT and mixing services. There's usually a cost/privacy tradeoff, and people will be able to choose their appropriate level of privacy.
      - mrb 8y ago
        Other cryptos are fully anonymous & untraceable. For example zcash uses zero-knowledge proofs (zk-SNARKs) to conceal all elements of a transaction (sender, receiver, amount.)
        akvadrako 8y ago
        Zcash only uses those for some transactions because the complexity is so high. It also requires connecting to the payment network via an IP address, which isn't really anonymous.
        mrb 8y ago
        «Zcash only uses those for some transactions» No, Zcash offers the option to always use shielded transactions, if that's what you want. The choice to use a shielded or unshielded transaction rests solely in the hands of the user. It is true that CPU and memory complexity use to be high for shielded transactions. However Sapling just activated (https://z.cash/blog/sapling-activation-complete/ https://z.cash/blog/sapling-activation-complete/) and it resolves the issue: a shielded transaction used to take up to minutes of CPU time and 3GB+ of RAM, but now can be done in 1 second with ~40MB: https://medium.com/@EthAdvisor/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-upcoming-zcash-sapling-upgrade-why-its-so-important-and-b5787cc7b68e https://medium.com/@EthAdvisor/everything-you-need-to-know-a... Furthermore, Zcash promotes the use of TOR if users wish to hide their IP address.
        sparkie 8y ago
        Private transactions are not the default behavior, which makes transaction analysis more feasible than with private-by-default currencies like Monero. Also, zcash has the trusted setup issue, which requires that you trust the developers were not compromised or did not store data during the setup, or they might be able to print infinite coins without detection if the data were to be recovered. For some, this makes it a non-starter, despite the efficiency of SNARKS over Bulletproofs which Monero now uses. Don't let that deter you though. Zooko only pays himself a $300,000/mo salary. He will struggle to get by without the crowds of new adopters.
    - asah 8y ago
      Serious q: one of the big arguments against untraceable transactions is organized crime. Yes they're very real. But what if untraceable transactions were limited to small amounts and slow rates, such that you could personally provide for your family but not run an enterprise? (basically that's what physical cash attempts, and as long as the denominations are kept low, it sort of works)
      - sparkie 8y ago
        You can ask the questions about whether it should or should not enable crime, but the question is useless, because it doesn't address whether it can or cannot enable crime. When you ask this question, you come to the conclusion that it can enable crime. So then you might argue that if it can enable crime, we must do something about it. Admirable ideas, but you then need to ask the question, can we do anything about it? When you ask this, you come to the conclusion that you can't do anything about it. Bitcoin happened. Nobody is in control. It does not care about your opinion. So the real question we should be asking, is, if Bitcoin can enable crime, and we are unable to prevent the use of Bitcoin, how must our law enforcement adapt to this new world? Then we can stop wasting resources on hopelessly trying to adapt the world to suit law enforcement.
        jcoffland 8y ago
        Rocks enable crime and they are everywhere. We need to do something about this rock problem we have.
        dasil003 8y ago
        You're fooling yourself if you believe nothing can be done about Bitcoin. If the powers that be want it dead they'll outlaw it, and that's effectively game over for any kind of common transaction system. The reason it hasn't so far is because there are too many rich and powerful speculators involved, but those winds could change in a hurry so I wouldn't get too cocky.
        go_blue_13 8y ago
        Yeah this is wrong. Bitcoin is everywhere, not just in the US, and there's no way in hell going to be a worldwide coordinated crackdown. And as long as people are running nodes, Bitcoin isn't going anywhere.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - stale2002 8y ago
    > I agree, but unfortunately I don't believe a society being run by humans would ever implement that This was already implemented for hundreds of years. It is called "paying with cash". Sure, there are some minor edge cases, like dollar serial numbers that are sometimes tracked to catch bank robbers or whatever, but cash is mostly anonymous and untraceable.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- shanev 8y ago
  This is exactly what Zcash is building.
EthanHeilman 8y ago
We have known how to do untraceable* transactions [0] since 1982. There has now been thirty years of cryptographic research building on these results. The reason it hasn't happened is not because we can't do it but because governments resist the additional privacy protections. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecash * - For some values of untracable. The privacy provided by ecash is in theory less than cash provides in practice, but certainly a massive privacy improvement over credit cards. In theory cash provides less privacy than ecash since stores could record the serial numbers on cash. However in practice they don't and thus cash in practice provides quite a bit of privacy.
- tjoff 8y ago
  Yeah, politically unrealistic is what I meant.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- reaperducer 8y ago
  We have known how to do untraceable transactions [0] since 1982.* We have known how to do untraceable transactions since 3,000 BC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money
- Aeolun 8y ago
  Even if they store the serial numbers on cash, there is no name linked to those numbers without you also using something like a store/coupon card.
  - EthanHeilman 8y ago
    In theory what could be done is (not saying anyone does this): 1. When you get cash from an ATM or Bank they record the serial numbers of the cash they gave you and attach it to your identity. 2. When you spend those funds at a store they record what you bought and the serial numbers of the cash you paid with and the serial numbers of the bills you received as change. The government could then build a graph of spends attached to your identity. With high probability they could trace how you spent that money. One problem they would run into is if you gave or received cash from a friend. However while this might cause the tracing procedure to make some errors, it would also allow it to, in some cases, infer which of your friends you exchange cash with. In any realistic scenario the government would also be intersecting this graph of spends with additional information such as license plate readers, RFID data from public transit, facial recognition,cell tower geolocation, etc... Serial number tracing would be just one data source. Probably your best bet for privacy here would be pay people begging for money to swap bills with you e.g. exchanging a twenty dollar bill for a ten dollar bill.

by tjoff 8y ago

zzzcpan 8y ago

Untraceable anonymous transactions is the minimal requirement for it not to be harmful and dystopian.

tjoff 8y ago
I agree, but unfortunately I don't believe a society being run by humans would ever implement that. The leaders will not tolerate that kind of loss of control.
- ellius 8y ago
  It also probably makes counterfeiting and fraud an enormous problem.
- sparkie 8y ago
  It has already been implemented (Bitcoin, Monero etc), and is improving gradually. The control freaks who would not like to tolerate it think they'll be able to tame it, but Bitcoin is like the Hydra - it gets stronger with every unsuccessful attack attempt. It's better for them to bury their heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist in order to not bring attention to it. When they eventually lift their heads out of the sand they'll find that the world has moved on without them.
  - tjoff 8y ago
    Bitcoin is neither anonymous nor untraceable. Replacing cash with bitcoin would be a nightmare.
    - sparkie 8y ago
      It's not there yet, but eventually Bitcoin will be near enough anonymous and untraceable via the use of the Lightning Network, sidechains, CT and mixing services. There's usually a cost/privacy tradeoff, and people will be able to choose their appropriate level of privacy.
    - mrb 8y ago
      Other cryptos are fully anonymous & untraceable. For example zcash uses zero-knowledge proofs (zk-SNARKs) to conceal all elements of a transaction (sender, receiver, amount.)
      - akvadrako 8y ago
        Zcash only uses those for some transactions because the complexity is so high. It also requires connecting to the payment network via an IP address, which isn't really anonymous.
        mrb 8y ago
        «Zcash only uses those for some transactions» No, Zcash offers the option to always use shielded transactions, if that's what you want. The choice to use a shielded or unshielded transaction rests solely in the hands of the user. It is true that CPU and memory complexity use to be high for shielded transactions. However Sapling just activated (https://z.cash/blog/sapling-activation-complete/ https://z.cash/blog/sapling-activation-complete/) and it resolves the issue: a shielded transaction used to take up to minutes of CPU time and 3GB+ of RAM, but now can be done in 1 second with ~40MB: https://medium.com/@EthAdvisor/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-upcoming-zcash-sapling-upgrade-why-its-so-important-and-b5787cc7b68e https://medium.com/@EthAdvisor/everything-you-need-to-know-a... Furthermore, Zcash promotes the use of TOR if users wish to hide their IP address.
        sparkie 8y ago
        Private transactions are not the default behavior, which makes transaction analysis more feasible than with private-by-default currencies like Monero. Also, zcash has the trusted setup issue, which requires that you trust the developers were not compromised or did not store data during the setup, or they might be able to print infinite coins without detection if the data were to be recovered. For some, this makes it a non-starter, despite the efficiency of SNARKS over Bulletproofs which Monero now uses. Don't let that deter you though. Zooko only pays himself a $300,000/mo salary. He will struggle to get by without the crowds of new adopters.
  - asah 8y ago
    Serious q: one of the big arguments against untraceable transactions is organized crime. Yes they're very real. But what if untraceable transactions were limited to small amounts and slow rates, such that you could personally provide for your family but not run an enterprise? (basically that's what physical cash attempts, and as long as the denominations are kept low, it sort of works)
    - sparkie 8y ago
      You can ask the questions about whether it should or should not enable crime, but the question is useless, because it doesn't address whether it can or cannot enable crime. When you ask this question, you come to the conclusion that it can enable crime. So then you might argue that if it can enable crime, we must do something about it. Admirable ideas, but you then need to ask the question, can we do anything about it? When you ask this, you come to the conclusion that you can't do anything about it. Bitcoin happened. Nobody is in control. It does not care about your opinion. So the real question we should be asking, is, if Bitcoin can enable crime, and we are unable to prevent the use of Bitcoin, how must our law enforcement adapt to this new world? Then we can stop wasting resources on hopelessly trying to adapt the world to suit law enforcement.
      - jcoffland 8y ago
        Rocks enable crime and they are everywhere. We need to do something about this rock problem we have.
      - dasil003 8y ago
        You're fooling yourself if you believe nothing can be done about Bitcoin. If the powers that be want it dead they'll outlaw it, and that's effectively game over for any kind of common transaction system. The reason it hasn't so far is because there are too many rich and powerful speculators involved, but those winds could change in a hurry so I wouldn't get too cocky.
        go_blue_13 8y ago
        Yeah this is wrong. Bitcoin is everywhere, not just in the US, and there's no way in hell going to be a worldwide coordinated crackdown. And as long as people are running nodes, Bitcoin isn't going anywhere.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- stale2002 8y ago
  > I agree, but unfortunately I don't believe a society being run by humans would ever implement that This was already implemented for hundreds of years. It is called "paying with cash". Sure, there are some minor edge cases, like dollar serial numbers that are sometimes tracked to catch bank robbers or whatever, but cash is mostly anonymous and untraceable.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
shanev 8y ago
This is exactly what Zcash is building.

EthanHeilman 8y ago

We have known how to do untraceable* transactions [0] since 1982. There has now been thirty years of cryptographic research building on these results. The reason it hasn't happened is not because we can't do it but because governments resist the additional privacy protections. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecash * - For some values of untracable. The privacy provided by ecash is in theory less than cash provides in practice, but certainly a massive privacy improvement over credit cards. In theory cash provides less privacy than ecash since stores could record the serial numbers on cash. However in practice they don't and thus cash in practice provides quite a bit of privacy.

tjoff 8y ago
Yeah, politically unrealistic is what I meant.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
reaperducer 8y ago
We have known how to do untraceable transactions [0] since 1982.* We have known how to do untraceable transactions since 3,000 BC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money
Aeolun 8y ago
Even if they store the serial numbers on cash, there is no name linked to those numbers without you also using something like a store/coupon card.
- EthanHeilman 8y ago
  In theory what could be done is (not saying anyone does this): 1. When you get cash from an ATM or Bank they record the serial numbers of the cash they gave you and attach it to your identity. 2. When you spend those funds at a store they record what you bought and the serial numbers of the cash you paid with and the serial numbers of the bills you received as change. The government could then build a graph of spends attached to your identity. With high probability they could trace how you spent that money. One problem they would run into is if you gave or received cash from a friend. However while this might cause the tracing procedure to make some errors, it would also allow it to, in some cases, infer which of your friends you exchange cash with. In any realistic scenario the government would also be intersecting this graph of spends with additional information such as license plate readers, RFID data from public transit, facial recognition,cell tower geolocation, etc... Serial number tracing would be just one data source. Probably your best bet for privacy here would be pay people begging for money to swap bills with you e.g. exchanging a twenty dollar bill for a ten dollar bill.