Hacker News Reader

Comment by dangero | Hacker News Reader

The unfortunate thing to me about Zcash is that privacy is opt-in. It would be like if Signal was default no privacy, but then you could enable it per message if you wanted to send something secret. Governments could just ban you from turning the privacy on and we've already seen this happen with TOR. Opting into privacy "raises suspicion", and we need services where privacy is enabled by default. Monero does this.

View on HN

you can interpret this as a problem and as a solution too. Yes, ztransactions will could dye your money so no exchange will accept it because you are a terrorist and the US can ban the usage of ztransactions. In my opinion it's better like this, since the overall goal is to not rely on exchanges and regulatory thirdparties. In a P2P economy (which is this technology is meant to lead us) fungibility problems are not a thing beacuse there is no relative central party to make a standard.

> In a P2P economy (which is this technology is meant to lead us) fungibility problems are not a thing beacuse there is no relative central party to make a standard.

wat?

fungibility is not about a standard. fungibility applies at every level.

"Hrmmm yes while you are looking at this car here I'm just going to scan your blockchain activity and hrmmmmm it seems that you are in about the top 30% of income in this country so yessss the price of this car is X"

boom. That car salesman just defacto made your tracecoin less valuable than some poor shmuck in the lower 50%.

It's just as possible to not use Monero's mix-ins as it is to use Zcash's transparent addresses. So no, Monero doesn't win here.

not true. Monero has had forced ringsize > 1 (the new term for mixin, because mixin implies active mixing) since around 2016 or so.

http://moneroblocks.info/stats/ring-size

ooh i can edit. And the recent fork increased the minimum to 5. Hopefully some magic math will soon make it possible for a minimum of 10.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com