What if i sell bch for monero on an exchange and transfer the monero to another exchange and buy bch with it. That should work?
Most likely, but we shouldn't have to exchange between Monero just to get private BCH. That's the problem.
But what about coin mixers wont that sort out the problem?
Yes and no. With Monero, it seems protocol level privacy is the superior solution. As evidenced by this thread however, the first step is to get the community to actually care.
I didn't know exchanges did such things, but still no different than usd or other fiat really
Not different from fiat, no. But certainly different from Monero and other coins with working privacy implementations.
I didn't know exchanges did such things, but still no different than usd or other fiat really
Try sending your coins to LocalBitcoins or any gambling site. Coinbase will ban your account for TOS violations. They watch your money, after it leaves their exchange.
the difference is that it's trustless, which makes it viable for automatic integration into your wallet software. drawbacks aren't really an issue in that case
Uh, drawbacks are drawbacks. CashShuffle is less functional than a traditional mixer with no improvement in fungibility and obfuscation. Trustless doesn't make those issues go away.
That's one of the most ironic lines in all of Star Wars because it's a statement dealing in absolutes. Episode 8 deals with it very nicely. Most people completely missed it.
Lol I know. I just love saying it. Mostly because of how ironic it is. Truth is world is almost never absolute.
Fungibility in my book means no coins are less valuable than each other. For example, a coin shouldn't have it's value obviated because an exchange doesn't like a transaction.
Like @Bryce kinda hinted at, really just the elimination of the concept of dirty/tainted currency.
How so? How are you defining 'fungible'? It already is by the standard economic definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility
Fungibility in my book means no coins are less valuable than each other. For example, a coin shouldn't have it's value obviated because an exchange doesn't like a transaction.
But my guess is that LR will phrase it as planetary self defense, as necessary to save the world and get rid of all evil and suffering. It is kill the capitalist or end of world.
Only a sith deals in absolutes
He is not actually arguing or making arguments. Just rephrasing and repeating his base premise. Capitalism(lists) are evil and needs to be reeducated or replaced to save the world.
So, killed essentially right?
Again, not an argument. I could say the same about you but it wouldn't mean shit or discredit your arguments by itself.
The point LR is making is that there is no room for civilized exchange of ideas or sound arguments with us. The premise is not that we are simply mistaken, but that we are evil.
I'd consider it 'good enough', protocol layer fungibility would make global adoption too difficult imo
Traditional mixing services are better than CashShuffle imo
Which isn't really a good thing. Protocol layer fungibility is a must have.
I could never live in a society like China's, and i know that's exactly where the United States is trying to go and follow in their footsteps.
As much as some of our Chinese friends like @Kokansei and @minkaminka praise or at least understand Chinese motivations and choices with censorship and such, China seems like hell to me.
It's like that episode of Black Mirror where they use your social media to judge whether you can rent apartments and stuff like that.
who is holding it back? it is actively being worked on
Maybe. Every time I've asked about it I've just had CashShuffle shoved at me. CashShuffle isn't fungibility. It's decentralized mixing. Nothing special about it.
Exactly. Specialization is only good when it is necessary. Crypto communities like to jerk each other off about how special they are, but a lot of these specializations are arbitrary
If anything, the only real benefit these other coins have imo is to later have their specializations brought to Bitcoin somehow. With a few exceptions like LBRY.
We shouldn't hold back fungibility because we are afraid the gov. won't back us. They already don't support us, and they probably wont for a very, very long time.
I'm so very tired of people in, for example, the Nano community making posts like "glad we aren't private, we will get rich cuz gov," I think the fight for fungibility is well worth it
Like most layman OpSec these days, it depends on your threat model.
I wouldn't worry about Coinbase or whatever tracing mixer tx's to find out what your buying. But i wouldn't count on pissing off the NSA and getting away with it either.
Contrary to popular belief, i think mixers are secure enough for most people until real fungibility arrives. That is to say, as long as you don't face a capable adversary, your fine.
We shouldn't hold back fungibility because we are afraid the gov. won't back us. They already don't support us, and they probably wont for a very, very long time.
Bottom line, people shouldn't need to use an exchange to go through 5 altcoins because each has a single property that's useful to them.
All of these problems need to be resolved on ONE chain. Unified and accessible to everyone. Isn't that the BCH model?
If we ever hope to become a global currency, we can't just keep pushing people to other chains for their financial concerns. Fungibility, low fees, fast confirmations etc.
