3 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 Random company blogs and random

> 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.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      >>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. The group that can view the private information in Taler is limited to the state. >>Cool, you can also try to mix your transactions on Taler, so another point towards Taler not having backdoors. On the list of features on the Taler website, it says the following: >>Customers can stay anonymous, but merchants can not hide their income through payments with GNU Taler. This helps to avoid tax evasion and money laundering. I think you're being disingenuous in implying that a non-backdoored version of Taler would still fit the description the Taler website itself gives for the software. >>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? * Auditing of the validity of the transactions that doesn't require exposing private information to third parties * Auditing by everyone, not a select few with privileged backdoor access.
CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>Random company blogs and random UK news blogs aren't the authorities on what a backdoor is. In natural language, the authority on what a word means is just the convention. When any of the top 10 search results I sample for the term 'encryption backdoor' use it in the manner I referred to, It's a safe assumption that this is how the term is conventionally understood, and thus the correct definition of the term. >>backdoors are usually covert That doesn't contradict what I said. >>but are intrinsically somewhat fuzzy to define. Yes I can agree that the definitions of terms are somewhat fuzzy, but I think I can reasonably call Taler's eavesdropping mechanism 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). Merchants are not going to sign up for this if private options are available on the market. Even merchants that want to disclose their finances to state authorities would want to retain control over when and where they disclose that information, rather than providing a permanent open book to taxing authorities. >>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 That's irrelevant to whether it's a backdoor. Your browser is not a tool that they use. It's a tool that you use. Thus inspection tools on it wouldn't be a backdoor by virtue of them wanting you to not have them. I think at this point you're being pedantic and not discussing this in good faith.
- danShumway 5y ago
  > In natural language, the authority on what a word means is just the convention. Look, I'm not the person who started word-for-word quoting random blogs to win a technicality fight about how a specific word was being used. You want to escape from pedantry, great. Here's the non-pedantic reality: Taler's ability to audit merchant income streams is meaningfully different from a clipper chip and they should not be compared to each other, regardless of what umbrella term you think they both fall under. You want the non-pedantic argument about language? Language is (as you say) a convention, it's descriptive not prescriptive -- and the majority of people looking at Taler are saying its design around auditability isn't a backdoor; therefore it's not, because language is descriptive and not perscriptive. > Merchants are not going to sign up for this if private options are available on the market. Citation needed. > Thus inspection tools on it wouldn't be a backdoor by virtue of them wanting you to not have them. Wat. You're just making things up now.

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.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    >>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. The group that can view the private information in Taler is limited to the state. >>Cool, you can also try to mix your transactions on Taler, so another point towards Taler not having backdoors. On the list of features on the Taler website, it says the following: >>Customers can stay anonymous, but merchants can not hide their income through payments with GNU Taler. This helps to avoid tax evasion and money laundering. I think you're being disingenuous in implying that a non-backdoored version of Taler would still fit the description the Taler website itself gives for the software. >>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? * Auditing of the validity of the transactions that doesn't require exposing private information to third parties * Auditing by everyone, not a select few with privileged backdoor access.

CryptoPunk 5y ago

>>Random company blogs and random UK news blogs aren't the authorities on what a backdoor is. In natural language, the authority on what a word means is just the convention. When any of the top 10 search results I sample for the term 'encryption backdoor' use it in the manner I referred to, It's a safe assumption that this is how the term is conventionally understood, and thus the correct definition of the term. >>backdoors are usually covert That doesn't contradict what I said. >>but are intrinsically somewhat fuzzy to define. Yes I can agree that the definitions of terms are somewhat fuzzy, but I think I can reasonably call Taler's eavesdropping mechanism 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). Merchants are not going to sign up for this if private options are available on the market. Even merchants that want to disclose their finances to state authorities would want to retain control over when and where they disclose that information, rather than providing a permanent open book to taxing authorities. >>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 That's irrelevant to whether it's a backdoor. Your browser is not a tool that they use. It's a tool that you use. Thus inspection tools on it wouldn't be a backdoor by virtue of them wanting you to not have them. I think at this point you're being pedantic and not discussing this in good faith.

danShumway 5y ago
> In natural language, the authority on what a word means is just the convention. Look, I'm not the person who started word-for-word quoting random blogs to win a technicality fight about how a specific word was being used. You want to escape from pedantry, great. Here's the non-pedantic reality: Taler's ability to audit merchant income streams is meaningfully different from a clipper chip and they should not be compared to each other, regardless of what umbrella term you think they both fall under. You want the non-pedantic argument about language? Language is (as you say) a convention, it's descriptive not prescriptive -- and the majority of people looking at Taler are saying its design around auditability isn't a backdoor; therefore it's not, because language is descriptive and not perscriptive. > Merchants are not going to sign up for this if private options are available on the market. Citation needed. > Thus inspection tools on it wouldn't be a backdoor by virtue of them wanting you to not have them. Wat. You're just making things up now.