3 ms·

This isn't deanonymization, it is modifying and infiltrating nodes to then listen what is happening from naive users connecting to them. There was never an exp

This isn't deanonymization, it is modifying and infiltrating nodes to then listen what is happening from naive users connecting to them. There was never an expectation of privacy when you connect to servers outside your control with non-encrypted data. That is the reason why the article itself mentions that this isn't working when running your own node, as most people do. This is the same thing as complaining that Monero is no longer anonymous because Windows is capturing screenshots and keyboard presses when you open the desktop app. Monero remains anonymous by default.

dodomodo 11mo ago
In practice they (allegedly) took anonymouse transaction and linked it to real world identity. Call it what you want.
- fruitworks 11mo ago
  The transaction wasn't really anonymouse in the first place, but I agree that the UI should warn users more when working in "light wallet" mode.
  - dodomodo 11mo ago
    Nothing is "really anonymouse", it's all a game of information sharing and hiding. I think I now understand the difference in our definitions, for you anonymouse means that at the protocol level no one can link the transaction to "you" (defined by a set of identifiers). My defenition is just "not publicly linked to your real world identity", so for example, sending a message under a pseudu name in a public forum would be anonymous under my defenition but not anonymouse under yours. What do you think?
    - fruitworks 11mo ago
      Necroing this, but my general opinion is that anonymousity is more of a question of extent and the shape of anonymousity sets than a binary condition of anonymouse/public. But you are correct that we can never satisfy the binary condition. Given enough foresnsics, it's possible to link pseudoanonymouse identities to real identities. See chainalysis. I'm sure if you apply stylometry to either of our posts, you could uncover our identities. I think there was a post here doing just that. So my real problem with the pseudoanonymouse model is that when if fails, it generally favors centralized institutions in who are capable of the surveilance needed for correlation. It is asymmetric. People say that bitcoin's transparency is a feature, but the feature is only accessible to those with the metadata, like arkham or chainalysis. Reputation systems can be very useful though.
abecedarius 11mo ago
> running your own node, as most people do. Huh, surprising -- it's very different from most people using most software. (Of course HN is not most people.) I tried to fill myself in by asking Claude Opus neutrally "do most users of Monero run their own node?" and was told it couldn't find good data, it's community-promoted behavior, but there were multiple reasons for skepticism. I have no idea, I'm just noting my surprise.
- krior 11mo ago
  I don't know what asking AI adds to the discussion.
  - ianbutler 11mo ago
    Well reading comprehension tells us they were surprised that most monero folks run their own nodes and that they were unable to find supporting information. Your comment however does actually add nothing.
    - wizzwizz4 11mo ago
      No, reading comprehension tells us that Claude Opus output the "unable to find supporting information" claim, which abecedarius faithfully relayed to us. There's no evidence in the text that suggests abecedarius attempted to find supporting information.
      - ianbutler 11mo ago
        Okay and if they had said Google we wouldn't be doing this dance, people just hate AI and its obnoxious to see comments about it on HN all the time. On a crypto post no less. We get it you guys don't like AI, next! It is equally obnoxious to people who talk about AI for everything as if it is a savior, it's a tool use it or don't.
      - abecedarius 11mo ago
        It was a form of "huh, interesting. I tried to quickly find some more evidence for this but failed." If Claude as search engine were able to link to some backing (maybe like "we estimate around n nodes regularly joining the network, which roughly matches the order of magnitude of estimated users" ) -- that'd be great! I'd have said I was surprised but look what I found. Instead: - it couldn't dig up anything supporting, except that Monero sites encourage users to run their own node; - one point it raised against was confirmed by another reply to my comment ("apps like CakeWallet, where their node is used and assumed as trustworthy"). (Claude listed the same and a couple more wallets it called "popular" with similar trust dependence.) I agree with GP that just relaying a chatbot is rude. That's why I didn't do that.

dodomodo 11mo ago

In practice they (allegedly) took anonymouse transaction and linked it to real world identity. Call it what you want.

fruitworks 11mo ago
The transaction wasn't really anonymouse in the first place, but I agree that the UI should warn users more when working in "light wallet" mode.
- dodomodo 11mo ago
  Nothing is "really anonymouse", it's all a game of information sharing and hiding. I think I now understand the difference in our definitions, for you anonymouse means that at the protocol level no one can link the transaction to "you" (defined by a set of identifiers). My defenition is just "not publicly linked to your real world identity", so for example, sending a message under a pseudu name in a public forum would be anonymous under my defenition but not anonymouse under yours. What do you think?
  - fruitworks 11mo ago
    Necroing this, but my general opinion is that anonymousity is more of a question of extent and the shape of anonymousity sets than a binary condition of anonymouse/public. But you are correct that we can never satisfy the binary condition. Given enough foresnsics, it's possible to link pseudoanonymouse identities to real identities. See chainalysis. I'm sure if you apply stylometry to either of our posts, you could uncover our identities. I think there was a post here doing just that. So my real problem with the pseudoanonymouse model is that when if fails, it generally favors centralized institutions in who are capable of the surveilance needed for correlation. It is asymmetric. People say that bitcoin's transparency is a feature, but the feature is only accessible to those with the metadata, like arkham or chainalysis. Reputation systems can be very useful though.

abecedarius 11mo ago

> running your own node, as most people do. Huh, surprising -- it's very different from most people using most software. (Of course HN is not most people.) I tried to fill myself in by asking Claude Opus neutrally "do most users of Monero run their own node?" and was told it couldn't find good data, it's community-promoted behavior, but there were multiple reasons for skepticism. I have no idea, I'm just noting my surprise.

krior 11mo ago
I don't know what asking AI adds to the discussion.
- ianbutler 11mo ago
  Well reading comprehension tells us they were surprised that most monero folks run their own nodes and that they were unable to find supporting information. Your comment however does actually add nothing.
  - wizzwizz4 11mo ago
    No, reading comprehension tells us that Claude Opus output the "unable to find supporting information" claim, which abecedarius faithfully relayed to us. There's no evidence in the text that suggests abecedarius attempted to find supporting information.
    - ianbutler 11mo ago
      Okay and if they had said Google we wouldn't be doing this dance, people just hate AI and its obnoxious to see comments about it on HN all the time. On a crypto post no less. We get it you guys don't like AI, next! It is equally obnoxious to people who talk about AI for everything as if it is a savior, it's a tool use it or don't.
    - abecedarius 11mo ago
      It was a form of "huh, interesting. I tried to quickly find some more evidence for this but failed." If Claude as search engine were able to link to some backing (maybe like "we estimate around n nodes regularly joining the network, which roughly matches the order of magnitude of estimated users" ) -- that'd be great! I'd have said I was surprised but look what I found. Instead: - it couldn't dig up anything supporting, except that Monero sites encourage users to run their own node; - one point it raised against was confirmed by another reply to my comment ("apps like CakeWallet, where their node is used and assumed as trustworthy"). (Claude listed the same and a couple more wallets it called "popular" with similar trust dependence.) I agree with GP that just relaying a chatbot is rude. That's why I didn't do that.