6 ms·

Most people still have no idea that a blockchain is 100% traceable. People get freaked out when you tell them the contents of their wallets.

aliqot 4y ago
some blockchains are 100% traceable.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  s/some/most/, especially if you're counting by market cap or number of users.
- t-3 4y ago
  Got examples? I can't see how an untraceable blockchain could still be considered a blockchain (or what use it would be). Isn't the whole point to be perfectly traceable?
  - sodality2 4y ago
    Monero has public transactions but the recipients and senders' addresses are encrypted so you can't really trace it to wallets
    - aliqot 4y ago
      Every UTXO is also randomized as far as input selection and distribution and also the way they're labeled as they travel through the system. For the simplest example, reference early monero code (at the time BMR, and MRO) where Borromean Ring Signatures were used, where the same operation is performed multiple times per-input effectively mixing inputs at the atomic level, rather than in later iterations (RingCT, Arcturus, etc) that extended this further to obscure also the amounts of these inputs and to trim some of the inefficiencies of Borosigs.
  - Communitivity 4y ago
    Private blockchains. Imagine a crime cartel with a private blockchain. Obviously they are not KYC. You can withdraw funds from the cartel, or pay for cartel services with the coin. Ironically, a version of this was in private fiat currency - the coins in the John Wick movies were used this way.
    - t-3 4y ago
      That's still a traceable blockchain though, just privately kept. As soon as you start keeping a ledger, you make transactions traceable. With a single or low number of ledgers, network analysis becomes easier the more heavily each actor uses the currency as well, compromising anonymity.
      - aliqot 4y ago
        Private blockchain is a term that refers to blockchain tech that does not divulge balances and transaction history without being a signing party to that transaction or without a delegated 'view' key created by the keyholder for the purposes of the audit. It's a confusing term which should have a better name, I agree. For an example, most cryptonote networks function this way unless they have explicitly damaged or disabled the functions responsible, like in the case of Electroneum.
  - tenebrisalietum 4y ago
    I think I got the below right, correct me if wrong: What's stored in the blockchain that makes it work are public keys, and how you can talk to nodes who can append to the blockchain have to work over a network. You can always walk the whole chain at any time and account for all the activity of all public keys, and that is actually required because it's the primary way that the network knows "who" has what. So what connects the public key to a person? If: - private keys are never in the hands of a third party (public keys don't matter), and - transaction processors/miners are only available over secure channels that somehow dissociate the involved keys from loggable networky things like IP address, and - information like IP address is not stored in the blockchain, then a blockchain would be untraceable to anyone who does not have a complete view of all Internet activity between all the participants. Anyone with your private keys (which you can make more up any time you want) could transact under those keys as long as they can talk to enough processors/miners through any transport method, and alter "your" stuff, that's why you guard those with your life.
gonzo41 4y ago
The most sensible thing to do with blockchain is to track produce from when it's picked to when it's sold for QC. Every other use suggested, like voting, is just stupid trouble.
- Lukas_Skywalker 4y ago
  I always ask myself how the blockchain would work with physical products. Isn‘t there always a human who needs to either - enter the data somewhere - put a tag on the product - scan a tag and where they could, knowingly or not, produce false data?
  - rtkwe 4y ago
    Yeah this is the fundamental problem, the only benefit you get with a blockchain is you know the data hasn't been altered from the original but there's no guarantee the data originally entered was correct. All the pitches about tracking shipments have the same issue, shipping companies already do most of that without blockchain and the main issue of people lying to the computers isn't solved by adding a chain to the mix.
    - jonhohle 4y ago
      Why is blockchain needed for that and not any other immutable ledger?
      - acdha 4y ago
        It’s not, but if you say that you’re also saying that the people who’ve already put a lot of money into the system won’t get rich reselling their tokens.
      - rtkwe 4y ago
        It's not needed that's my point, the proposals for blockchain in most instances are best served by a WORM database and even that doesn't solve the actual issue of lying to the machine. The proponents all have a vested interest in something making their tokens worth while or at least bringing in new money so they can actually cash out. That's why NFTs exploded they were a great way to bring in new real money to allow people who were *coin rich to cash out to real usable money.
JohnJamesRambo 4y ago
Blockchains are anonymous, not untraceable. Except Monero, which is both.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  Pseudonymous, usually. You tend to have a 1:n mapping of wallet addresses to transactions. Unless you use Monero, which is anonymous.

aliqot 4y ago

some blockchains are 100% traceable.

AlexandrB 4y ago
s/some/most/, especially if you're counting by market cap or number of users.
t-3 4y ago
Got examples? I can't see how an untraceable blockchain could still be considered a blockchain (or what use it would be). Isn't the whole point to be perfectly traceable?
- sodality2 4y ago
  Monero has public transactions but the recipients and senders' addresses are encrypted so you can't really trace it to wallets
  - aliqot 4y ago
    Every UTXO is also randomized as far as input selection and distribution and also the way they're labeled as they travel through the system. For the simplest example, reference early monero code (at the time BMR, and MRO) where Borromean Ring Signatures were used, where the same operation is performed multiple times per-input effectively mixing inputs at the atomic level, rather than in later iterations (RingCT, Arcturus, etc) that extended this further to obscure also the amounts of these inputs and to trim some of the inefficiencies of Borosigs.
- Communitivity 4y ago
  Private blockchains. Imagine a crime cartel with a private blockchain. Obviously they are not KYC. You can withdraw funds from the cartel, or pay for cartel services with the coin. Ironically, a version of this was in private fiat currency - the coins in the John Wick movies were used this way.
  - t-3 4y ago
    That's still a traceable blockchain though, just privately kept. As soon as you start keeping a ledger, you make transactions traceable. With a single or low number of ledgers, network analysis becomes easier the more heavily each actor uses the currency as well, compromising anonymity.
    - aliqot 4y ago
      Private blockchain is a term that refers to blockchain tech that does not divulge balances and transaction history without being a signing party to that transaction or without a delegated 'view' key created by the keyholder for the purposes of the audit. It's a confusing term which should have a better name, I agree. For an example, most cryptonote networks function this way unless they have explicitly damaged or disabled the functions responsible, like in the case of Electroneum.
- tenebrisalietum 4y ago
  I think I got the below right, correct me if wrong: What's stored in the blockchain that makes it work are public keys, and how you can talk to nodes who can append to the blockchain have to work over a network. You can always walk the whole chain at any time and account for all the activity of all public keys, and that is actually required because it's the primary way that the network knows "who" has what. So what connects the public key to a person? If: - private keys are never in the hands of a third party (public keys don't matter), and - transaction processors/miners are only available over secure channels that somehow dissociate the involved keys from loggable networky things like IP address, and - information like IP address is not stored in the blockchain, then a blockchain would be untraceable to anyone who does not have a complete view of all Internet activity between all the participants. Anyone with your private keys (which you can make more up any time you want) could transact under those keys as long as they can talk to enough processors/miners through any transport method, and alter "your" stuff, that's why you guard those with your life.

gonzo41 4y ago

The most sensible thing to do with blockchain is to track produce from when it's picked to when it's sold for QC. Every other use suggested, like voting, is just stupid trouble.

Lukas_Skywalker 4y ago
I always ask myself how the blockchain would work with physical products. Isn‘t there always a human who needs to either - enter the data somewhere - put a tag on the product - scan a tag and where they could, knowingly or not, produce false data?
- rtkwe 4y ago
  Yeah this is the fundamental problem, the only benefit you get with a blockchain is you know the data hasn't been altered from the original but there's no guarantee the data originally entered was correct. All the pitches about tracking shipments have the same issue, shipping companies already do most of that without blockchain and the main issue of people lying to the computers isn't solved by adding a chain to the mix.
  - jonhohle 4y ago
    Why is blockchain needed for that and not any other immutable ledger?
    - acdha 4y ago
      It’s not, but if you say that you’re also saying that the people who’ve already put a lot of money into the system won’t get rich reselling their tokens.
    - rtkwe 4y ago
      It's not needed that's my point, the proposals for blockchain in most instances are best served by a WORM database and even that doesn't solve the actual issue of lying to the machine. The proponents all have a vested interest in something making their tokens worth while or at least bringing in new money so they can actually cash out. That's why NFTs exploded they were a great way to bring in new real money to allow people who were *coin rich to cash out to real usable money.

JohnJamesRambo 4y ago

Blockchains are anonymous, not untraceable. Except Monero, which is both.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
Pseudonymous, usually. You tend to have a 1:n mapping of wallet addresses to transactions. Unless you use Monero, which is anonymous.