2459 sats \ 11 replies \ @supertestnet 26 Jul \ on: So what are the problems with Monero? bitcoin
That ought to be the question. Monero's privacy comes from (1) decoy theory -- use ring signatures to blend in with a crowd of possible senders (2) amount encryption (3) stealth addresses -- when you scan a monero address, your wallet modifies it in a way that only the recipient can detect, and you send money to that modified address.
Well guess what? In bitcoin, coinjoins accomplish #1, payjoins accomplish #2, and two things accomplish #3: bip47 and, more recently, bip352. So what privacy tools does monero have that bitcoin doesn't? Moreover, bitcoin has lots of tools built out for coinswaps. They are super easy to do now thanks to lightning.
If you have a KYC'd coin (coin A) you can swap it for an un-KYC'd coin (coin B) via this four step process: (1) buy a channel from any LSP (2) use any submarine swap service to send coin A onto lightning (3) receive an equivalent amount ("coin B") in your new LSP channel (4) close that channel. Boom, you've swapped coin A for coin B and nothing on the blockchain shows their relationship. Try to do that on monero.
i'd imagine monero users would consider most of that as extra steps - they have a meme, 'just use monero' to that end - not advocating, not a monero user, but in a way i can see their point.
reply
I want to make a bitcoin wallet that automatically does all of this stuff for the user. <insert_name_here> wallet. Then we can reply to their meme with "Just use <insert_name_here> wallet."
reply
i'm not sure how useful un-kyc ing coins is - i mean, once you've announced you've got it, you can't make others un know you got it - maybe making no kyc easier and more prevalent is the more effective way ? or earning rather than buying, i suppose...
reply
Monero folks seem to focus on tax avoidance I think. If that is the goal you are correct. You can't un-kyc bitcoin in that way. Here's the real problem I think super is getting at. Linking your transaction history with a party you have a transaction with. Unlinking yourself and maintaining more privacy in the bitcoin eco system / blockchain. Correct me if I am wrong there.
I think one of the best arguments a monero person has is that even without KYC if someone has poor bitcoin Opsec they are exposing info to someone they transact. Thing is, this all comes down to better wallets that use best practices and make it hard to have bad Opsec.
I think the big issue I have with monero is getting the cart ahead of the horse with privacy.
reply
yeah good point about the unlinking aspect - hadn't considered that
reply
Re: "un-KYC-ing" coins, if your reason for doing that is "I don't want to be in a database at a big company like Coinbase," I suspect it actually DOES help. If the coins you bought from Coinbase never move then they can confidently say you still have them. If you "un-KYC" them then you did move them and their database will have to reflect that your KYC'd addresses are empty now. That's not nothing. You might still be in the database, but now there's at least implicitly a question mark by the addresses they associate with you. They know they "once" had coins but any future reports they make about your holdings must reflect that all the addresses they know you had coins in are empty now.
reply
That would be beautiful
reply
I think you are right about the response. The follow up to it is... yeah. Where am I gonna use this monero. We get back to network effect which is the same thing you get from no-coiners. Where do I spend my bitcoin. So we get back to adoption and NGU which like it or not is gonna be what gets people into the network. I always come back to game theory when I think about "privacy coins". I went through a phase of thinking they had a real place. The more I think about it at best their place is temporary and very narrow. As bitcoin grows in adoption they get weaker. Network effects are real. These problems of privacy are not only solvable but most future bitcoiners do not CARE about privacy.
reply
the monero doesn't scale thing is kind of true but as most people don't care about it, it tempers the growth of the chain to some degree... so it's niche aspect may (or may not) prolong it's presence
reply
Thanks @supertestnet
reply
#1 You would have to coinjoin every single transaction which no one does (especially after recent events). That would get expensive fast in time and money.
#2 Is a stretch. Payjoins are obfuscation. They don't hide/encrypt amounts.
#3 Is weaker on a transparent chain. Counterparties can easily figure out which address they sent to and watch where it goes going forward. Even third parties can most likely figure it out given any two combinations of amount, time, and sender address.
Last part reminds me of this meme
reply