This outcome was as obvious as it was inevitable.
There is no mechanism in crypto to reject incoming funds, and all the top addresses are public.
Anyone could easily send the top 100,000 wallets “tainted” crypto.
There is no mechanism in crypto to reject incoming funds, and all the top addresses are public.
Anyone could easily send the top 100,000 wallets “tainted” crypto.
1. Https://grin.mw
> In Mimblewimble, outputs are Pedersen commitments r*G+v*H which combine value and blinding factor into a single curve point. The blinding factor serves both to hide the value and to control ownership. Correspondingly, a single (multi-)signature serves both to prove value balance (non-inflation) and to authorize transfer of ownership.
[1] https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoTechnology/comments/kyhgcv/are...
Couldn't the same be said of a regular bank account? This doesn't seem to be unique to crypto.
Targeting the most prominent wallets may garner a bit more attention but the end result seems the same. A large number of individuals can have tainted funds deposited in their accounts creating a logistical nightmare.
Before posting funds to your account, a bank will scan the funds transfer against sanctions lists and only allow the deposit if there is no hit.
And it's hilarious when they have to pay you to get rid of it.
By paying to get rid of it all you are doing is paying for etherscan to update its backend that your address is no longer listed in that smart contract. The real solution is to have wallet software that only tracks tokens you care about.
> Several crypto projects were in their own right political statements about taking back control and decentralizing institutions
If these projects are about taking back control, why shouldn't I as a user have the agency to only accept transactions I approve?
What if someone dusts you NFTs with abusive imagery on IPFS linked to them? Or spam/scam tokens with funny smart contracts that trick you into doing something you don't want to do when you visit their project page?
It ought to have been an obvious feature from the beginning. Spam and public addresses have gone together since forever.
I strongly agree. If I have a choice between paying in cash or in a cryptocurrency, I would choose cash nearly every time (with a few exceptions).
Even if said coin existed, it wouldn't guarantee privacy, because information about transactions can be recorded or observed off-chain, and that information can be compromised.
Zcash is the ongoing project based on Zerocash, started in large part by those same researchers, but with funded teams of engineers continuously iterating on the protocol and implementations.
Ignoring that specific feature, if you did get money sent to your traditional bank account, you can always contact your bank and tell them you don't know what it is to avoid any trouble. This is not possible with Ethereum.