3 ms·
> There's a whole bunch of so-called "privacy coins" that attempt to address these issues and others. Why do you say "so-called"?
by sshine 4y ago
> There's a whole bunch of so-called "privacy coins" that attempt to address these issues and others.
Why do you say "so-called"?
- ZGDUwpqEWpUZ 4y agoGood question. Avoiding blanket endorsement/nudging people to do their own research, I guess.
- olliej 4y agoTo start off, I'm trying to be unbiased here, but I am generally anti-"crypto", nonetheless here goes: I obviously can't speak to OP's view, but in general the privacy coins are all small bit players. Because of that they are vulnerable to 51% attacks, this _can_ happen as the first google hit I did just now so that I could appear smart and knowledgeable :D : https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2020/11/08/privacy-coin-grin-is-victim-of-51-attack/ https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2020/11/08/privacy-coin-gri... How practical such an attack would be on the bigger networks I don't know, there were a couple of February ones saying monero was at risk, but I have no idea how plausible that would actually be. I would also consider smaller coins more likely to run into transaction correlation simply due to volume - I really don't know how secure the coins are if there are few participants, but if it's a small network looking for 10btc/eth transfer with a corresponding transaction in the small network, and then a later transaction back, doesn't seem implausible. My thinking here is purely along the lines of "imagine a mixer that only has 1 participant", that's obviously going to achieve nothing, but how many participants are needed before it stops being useless?