4 ms·

If you google the term, and find any article on the term, you'll see that it is not limited to access methods that are covert. Here's another top 10 result: ht

If you google the term, and find any article on the term, you'll see that it is not limited to access methods that are covert. Here's another top 10 result: https://www.klemchuk.com/ideate/encryption-backdoors-and-balancing-privacy https://www.klemchuk.com/ideate/encryption-backdoors-and-bal... Pubicly proposed interception mechanisms, like the Clipper Chip, were widely referred to as a backdoor, as have those put forth by the UK government recently for encrypted messaging apps https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/1556283/uk-government-prepares-to-launch-attack-whatsapp-facebook-messenger-end-to-end-encryption https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/1556... >>backdoors are defined in part by whether or not they're expected and wanted by the end-user, This would not be wanted by the end-user. The backdoor in this case is just an imposition on the receiving party, i.e. the merchant, that they'd rather do without. No tool to let the state eavesdrop on or surveil one's private affairs is wanted by the party being subjected to it. This is unequivocally a backdoor, and it would only win out in the market if tools without backdoors are eliminated from the market by the state, using the state's apparatus of violence (the police, courts and prisons that gain compliance with government edicts).

danShumway 5y ago
> If you google the term, and find any article on the term, you'll see that it is not limited to access methods that are covert Random company blogs and random UK news blogs aren't the authorities on what a backdoor is. You look at something like, for example, Wikipedia, and it basically agrees with my take above: backdoors are usually covert, but are intrinsically somewhat fuzzy to define. This is how the word is typically used in common conversation. > This would not be wanted by the end-user. The backdoor in this case is just an imposition on the receiving party, i.e. the merchant, that they'd rather do without. Speak for yourself, this is literally the selling point of GNU Taler, this is one of the reasons people are interested in it. They put "taxable" in the tagline not just out of an interest in transparency but because it's their main "hook" to get people interested in the system. Once again, I talked about this above, but backdoors are a fuzzy concept where different communities can end up with different conclusions about what does or doesn't fall into the category of a backdoor. The fact that you personally don't want income levels for merchants to be auditable by the state does not mean no one else wants that transparency (merchants included). Once again, taking that idea to its logical conclusion would be absurd. A nontrivial number of software merchants would like it if my browser didn't have inspector tools and didn't let me look at the source code of pages that they sent me. A lot of web publishers would like it if browsers didn't have tools that let people intercept and modify HTML before it gets rendered to the page. That doesn't mean my browser inspector or my adblocker is a backdoor. These terms are in part socially defined, and yes, expectation and transparency are a part of how we do that. They're not the only part, but they are a part. You posit a world where any disclosure of any information where anyone would prefer that information to be private is a backdoor, and that broadens the definition of a backdoor beyond the point of usefulness and beyond the scope of how most people and most articles online use the term.
- danShumway 5y ago
  I guess as just one last note, there's some irony in the fact that you're criticizing Taler for having a backdoor in the form of making revenue to merchant accounts auditable, when Ethereum/Bitcoin record literally all transactions to both sellers and buyers publicly, including not just transaction volume but transaction sources. Yes, you can try to use Bitcoin/Ethereum pseudonymously, but you can also try to use Taler pseudonymously, and yes you can try to mix up your coins to obscure specific transactions, but you can also try to mix up your transactions and do money laundering on Taler too. Basically any privacy measure that Bitcoin tries to add on top of the blockchain to get around its more fundamental privacy problem could also be applied on top of Taler, including things like shared wallets, mixers, transaction rollups, etc... By your definition of what a backdoor is, it seems like Taler is meaningfully less backdoored and meaningfully more private than most cryptocurrencies, including Ethereum. That's especially true once currency/coin exchanges enter the mix.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    >>when Ethereum/Bitcoin record literally all transactions to both sellers and buyers publicly, including not just transaction volume but transaction sources. That's not a backdoor, as it's not a method whereby a select few can view private information. Moreover, there are various methods, especially in Ethereum, where this private information can be hidden, like zk-SNARK-based mixing contracts that break the publicly visible link between deposits and withdrawals to it. Ethereum's lack of privacy is a result of the attempt to allow global auditibility of the validity of transactions. There was no design goal of making it possible to spy on Ethereum transactions. That was an unintended side-effect, and as methods have been created to avoid that side-effect, they have been implemented by end users. Taler's design on the other hand breaks privacy intentionally, for the sake of preventing people from escaping taxation mandates.
    - danShumway 5y ago
      > whereby a select few can view private information Oh, cool, then Taler also doesn't have a backdoor, since its auditability is also not a method by which a select few can view private information. > Moreover, there are various methods, especially in Ethereum, where this private information can be hidden, like zk-SNARK-based mixing contracts that break the publicly visible link between deposits and withdrawals to it. Cool, you can also try to mix your transactions on Taler, so another point towards Taler not having backdoors. > Ethereum's lack of privacy is a result of the attempt to allow global auditibility of the validity of transactions. So what you're saying is a deliberate design decision to allow auditing as part of the core design of a product isn't a backdoor? Cool, then Taler doesn't have a backdoor. Note that Taler's auditing design is more private than Ethereum's, it leaks less information to accomplish the same goal. > breaks privacy intentionally, for the sake of preventing people from escaping taxation mandates Also known as auditability. Ethereum's design breaks privacy intentionally, for the sake of preventing people from double-spending.

danShumway 5y ago

> If you google the term, and find any article on the term, you'll see that it is not limited to access methods that are covert Random company blogs and random UK news blogs aren't the authorities on what a backdoor is. You look at something like, for example, Wikipedia, and it basically agrees with my take above: backdoors are usually covert, but are intrinsically somewhat fuzzy to define. This is how the word is typically used in common conversation. > This would not be wanted by the end-user. The backdoor in this case is just an imposition on the receiving party, i.e. the merchant, that they'd rather do without. Speak for yourself, this is literally the selling point of GNU Taler, this is one of the reasons people are interested in it. They put "taxable" in the tagline not just out of an interest in transparency but because it's their main "hook" to get people interested in the system. Once again, I talked about this above, but backdoors are a fuzzy concept where different communities can end up with different conclusions about what does or doesn't fall into the category of a backdoor. The fact that you personally don't want income levels for merchants to be auditable by the state does not mean no one else wants that transparency (merchants included). Once again, taking that idea to its logical conclusion would be absurd. A nontrivial number of software merchants would like it if my browser didn't have inspector tools and didn't let me look at the source code of pages that they sent me. A lot of web publishers would like it if browsers didn't have tools that let people intercept and modify HTML before it gets rendered to the page. That doesn't mean my browser inspector or my adblocker is a backdoor. These terms are in part socially defined, and yes, expectation and transparency are a part of how we do that. They're not the only part, but they are a part. You posit a world where any disclosure of any information where anyone would prefer that information to be private is a backdoor, and that broadens the definition of a backdoor beyond the point of usefulness and beyond the scope of how most people and most articles online use the term.

danShumway 5y ago
I guess as just one last note, there's some irony in the fact that you're criticizing Taler for having a backdoor in the form of making revenue to merchant accounts auditable, when Ethereum/Bitcoin record literally all transactions to both sellers and buyers publicly, including not just transaction volume but transaction sources. Yes, you can try to use Bitcoin/Ethereum pseudonymously, but you can also try to use Taler pseudonymously, and yes you can try to mix up your coins to obscure specific transactions, but you can also try to mix up your transactions and do money laundering on Taler too. Basically any privacy measure that Bitcoin tries to add on top of the blockchain to get around its more fundamental privacy problem could also be applied on top of Taler, including things like shared wallets, mixers, transaction rollups, etc... By your definition of what a backdoor is, it seems like Taler is meaningfully less backdoored and meaningfully more private than most cryptocurrencies, including Ethereum. That's especially true once currency/coin exchanges enter the mix.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>when Ethereum/Bitcoin record literally all transactions to both sellers and buyers publicly, including not just transaction volume but transaction sources. That's not a backdoor, as it's not a method whereby a select few can view private information. Moreover, there are various methods, especially in Ethereum, where this private information can be hidden, like zk-SNARK-based mixing contracts that break the publicly visible link between deposits and withdrawals to it. Ethereum's lack of privacy is a result of the attempt to allow global auditibility of the validity of transactions. There was no design goal of making it possible to spy on Ethereum transactions. That was an unintended side-effect, and as methods have been created to avoid that side-effect, they have been implemented by end users. Taler's design on the other hand breaks privacy intentionally, for the sake of preventing people from escaping taxation mandates.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    > whereby a select few can view private information Oh, cool, then Taler also doesn't have a backdoor, since its auditability is also not a method by which a select few can view private information. > Moreover, there are various methods, especially in Ethereum, where this private information can be hidden, like zk-SNARK-based mixing contracts that break the publicly visible link between deposits and withdrawals to it. Cool, you can also try to mix your transactions on Taler, so another point towards Taler not having backdoors. > Ethereum's lack of privacy is a result of the attempt to allow global auditibility of the validity of transactions. So what you're saying is a deliberate design decision to allow auditing as part of the core design of a product isn't a backdoor? Cool, then Taler doesn't have a backdoor. Note that Taler's auditing design is more private than Ethereum's, it leaks less information to accomplish the same goal. > breaks privacy intentionally, for the sake of preventing people from escaping taxation mandates Also known as auditability. Ethereum's design breaks privacy intentionally, for the sake of preventing people from double-spending.