Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
According to the Electron Cash RELEASE-NOTES file, Schnorr signatures were enabled by default in 4.0.4.

The RELEASE-NOTES file is included in the software package at least on my system, and it's the authoritative document to read up on changes between versions, as a user...
 

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
Abject nonsense. There is no middle way for you apparently, despite common sense and facts staring you in the face.
Those who give little thought to law see it as a spectrum, with anonymity just being ultra-privacy. It's not a spectrum, but rather two antithetical forces, as I explained above. Both entail secrecy; the difference is in whether disclosure can be compelled, as this makes all the difference in law.

Understand that CashShuffle is a privacy-destroying system, and in fact a good way to end up with your government demanding you hand over your coins, unless you keep careful KYC-type records of who you shuffled with. The law, yes, it cannot just be ignored if you want to remain free and wealthy. Shuffling for privacy is a possible thing, but only when you keep records and know who are shuffling with. Anyway, it's not really necessary when Bitcoin is used as Satoshi recommended.

Again, anonymity is antithetical to privacy. What happens when you are asked where all those coins came from? If you mixed with non-criminals, my guess is the worst that can happen is civil forfeiture; if not...
 
Last edited:

trinoxol

Active Member
Jun 13, 2019
147
422
Germany
electron cash 4.0.6 and up has schnorr signatures enabled by default. this is not explicitly announced upon installation. i was absolutely NOT AMUSED about making a transaction and finding out after the fact that i participated in a group signature scheme.
How did that happen? Does this happen when making a normal transaction? Or was a CoinShuffle triggered?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
No one seems to understand the difference between laundering and privacy. Criminals don't launder for privacy! Cash already gives them privacy. Criminals launder so that the Lambo in the carport doesn't raise IRS eyebrows.

Didn't anyone watch Breaking Bad? The carwash business actually laundered money. Think about why Walter didn't just spend his meth dollars. The point wasn't to obscure the origin, as the origin isn't written on the bills anyway; the point was to create a fake white-market origin. By CashShuffle logic those unlaundered dollars are squeaky clean and "privacy protected" since their source cannot be determined. Mixing does the very opposite of the carwash business! (unless you kept KYC records on every party in the group signature scheme)

It's not even laundering; it's a boneheaded attempt at laundering that has zero benefit unless you are a criminal.

I may disagree with some of you, but I don't want to see you lose your stash as a party to attempted money laundering due to an innocent misunderstanding of how money law works. I suspect this idea that mixing is "for privacy" was created and promoted by criminals looking for a way to hide their crimes.

Here is why not to use these so-called privacy measures. Satoshi gave privacy measures in the whitepaper and they are nothing like mixing. Mixing does what it sounds like: turns everything into gray. Just as if you were mixing paint. But only pristine white is fungible.



Mixing turns illegally obtained bitcoins into bitcoins of unprovable origin. It does not clean them. It turns them from black to gray. They can still be confiscated and still cannot be used in quantity on the white market, but they are harder (more expensive) to trace to the specific crime.

Mixing turns legally obtained bitcoins into bitcoins of unprovable origin. It does not make them black, instead it turns them from white to gray. The only "benefit" is it opens them to confiscation, makes Best Buy flag you for KYC when you buy a big screen TV (and maybe an IRS audit), and opens you to possible entanglement in criminal investigations including the worst of the worst criminals as possible co-parties.

Friends don't let friends CashShuffle.
 
Last edited:

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
"I see, sir. So you bought 20 bitcoins on an exchange then moved them to this address you attest is yours, then these other addresses you attest are yours, yadda yadda yah...then you did a group signature with several addresses known to belong to a major human trafficking ring, then finally to an exchange where you sold the coins for a total of $2.3 million. Welp, all checks out."

This would be a so-called "privacy" proponent's fantasy scenario except that such people never even think that far. It's just a vague belief that Bitcoin is above the law. Think why you never see actual scenarios of IRS or police questioning written out by these folks thinking they can neener-neener the taxman and the courts away.

They have no plan, just a foggy notion that once they mix they are in the clear. All they did is go gray (and that's assuming TOR isn't compromised, which isn't a good assumption anyway). If from black maybe they did themselves a favor, but if from white all they did is fall on their own sword for some unknown possible criminals. And remember this isn't just drug dealers, this is potentially the worst of the worst. Turn your white coins gray to help them turn their black coins gray, and call it promoting privacy? That's a sucker's deal.

It's really time people thought about law and the real world. It's time to grow up. This is Bitcoin's last chance for uptake in the adult world before the halving destroys mining incentives.
 
Last edited:

trinoxol

Active Member
Jun 13, 2019
147
422
Germany
When you CoinJoin you should still be able to prove the flow of your funds. You own the input and output addresses. You can show the flow of your coins to the tax office and in court. This seems fine for legal usage.

It would not always help launder illegal coins because you can't show the origin of that money. It can still help sometimes if you use illegal coins, CoinJoin them and pay to someone who is not connected to the system (buy drugs).

CoinJoin also helps to convert legal coins into coins that you can spend illegally (buy drugs).
 

cbeast

Active Member
Sep 15, 2015
260
299
Trust me, we're all waiting for Craig's experts to take the stand and then you'll find out.
You mean when hipsters have to come in and repeat what CSW has been saying all along what the brainwashed cryptoratti failed to grok? Trust me, we already know what happened. Most of us got here by knowing real threats from obvious bullshit.
 

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
How did that happen? Does this happen when making a normal transaction? Or was a CoinShuffle triggered?
there was no CoinShuffle. electron cash 4.04 and up signs all txns with schnorr sigs by default, as per the RELEASE-NOTES.

to deactivate, go to Tools>Electron Cash preferences, choose the Transactions tab, unclick "Enable Schnorr signatures"
[doublepost=1562930372][/doublepost]i suppose one should keep in mind that, according to the ABC Bitcoin Cash roadmap, schnorr signatures are not a privacy feature, but part of the scaling plan, via batching. :unicorn:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sgbett and Norway

BldSwtTrs

Active Member
Sep 10, 2015
196
583
@Zangelbert Bingledack that's why optional privacy is a doomed path. Optional disclosure is better, as with Monero's view keys for example.

Thanks to view keys, the taxman and the court can audit you once you give them the needed information, while your financial information stay private for everyone else.

Blockchain analysis companies will know A LOT of things, they will know way more than with the current financial system.

Some people don't like Libra because they don't want Facebook to have their payment data but Facebook only has to acquire a blockchain analysis company to have almost the same level of information from anyone using BTC or any transparent public blockchain.

Regarding the rule of law, you are saying really interesting stuff but I think you make a too big leap of faith regarding the respect of law by governments.

First, your argument regarding the rule of law only apply to western countries. 5 or 6 billion of people should rightfully be afraid of their governements.

Then, even western goverments should not be blindly trusted. They are half the size of the economy and most of them are not far away from bankruptcy. It might make sense to have some almost intraceable wealth (akin to gold or cash for the analog world), just in case the future gets ugly.

Basically the future bears risks, and you don't deal with risks by cutting all paths but one.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 79b79aa8

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
> Blockchain analysis companies will know A LOT of things, they will know way more than with the current financial system.

idk, the totality of my bank and brokerage movements are fully visible to the IRS.

> Some people don't like Libra because they don't want Facebook to have their payment data

fb has demonstrated it can't be trusted with people's vacation pictures. now it wants to become a central bank. what could go wrong.
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
Must say the new Zangelbert doesn't impress me as much as the old one did.

2017-12-12 :
With the brutal (to BTC) Ver interview, the biggest darknet market supporting BCH, SBI Holdings, Cash Shuffle, exchanges almost all now supporting BCH, BCH trading pairs, 1 million bitcoin.com wallets, many new Cashening milestones reached every day, I'm feeling pretty bullish on Bitcoin Cash.
This is huge. Take a look at /r/DarkNetMarkets/, holy shit. It's finally happening, they're fed up with BTC and its high fees especially for mixing.
2018-01-13 :
1MB is increasing centralization:

[skip]
- it makes mixing impractical along with killing other privacy functions per OP, thus increasing the power of central governments, opening users to attack (any decentralization that doesn't grant greater immunity to attack is illusory)
2017-11-29 :
Imagine if that had been the approach from the start of Bitcoin. Would it have ever taken off? No Silk Road, no gambling, no Backpage.com, no NewEgg, no tipping camgirls, no remittances for migrant workers.
Then...

2019-07-12 :
Friends don't let friends CashShuffle.
Understand that CashShuffle is a privacy-destroying system
I don't know when exactly your view changed, but it's very noticeable.
 
Last edited:

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
a while ago i asked if BU was participating in STN and i could not get an answer.

does BU have an STN node?
 

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
Must say the new Zangelbert doesn't impress me as much as the old one did.

I don't know when exactly your view changed, but it's very noticeable.
When I stopped thinking like a child.

I still think the illegal uses helped put Bitcoin on the map, but it was a double-edged sword and wasn't necessary. And ultimately I had been thinking naively about pricacy and law just like most everyone else.

Also, I have thought more and concluded that transparency is the best way to keep the government small. This history of e-cash before Bitcoin is illustrative: there were rather well-anonymized systems and they took a huge amount of coordination among many countries to take down, but they were taken down. From that it is easy to see that Bitcoin would be easy to take down as well; just like the Internet would be, and just like nukes would be easy to launch, and just like it would easy for anyone on the highway to kill anyone else with the flick of a wrist. The world works by incentives, not by which actions are easy or hard to perform. Bitcoin survives by incentives and does its magic by incentives, including avoiding getting banned.

Unbannable is just a taunt; government power just gets a license to expand until it can ban. The only way to avoid a ban is to make it ecpnomic suicide to ban.
 
Last edited:

go1111111

Active Member
"Unbannable is just a taunt; government power just gets a license to expand until it can ban."

Governments (at least western democracies) are constrained because those in power really want to remain electable. So if a crackdown on Bitcoin would require tactics that would be extremely unpopular with voters, it probably won't happen. Strong (zcash-like) privacy in Bitcoin is something that would require extremely draconian measures for the government to fight against. I doubt they would try, because no elected leader would want to stand behind such measures.

@Zangelbert Bingledack, if you had to link me to only one description of your general views on privacy vs anonymity and why anonymity is bad, what would you link me to? I haven't kept up with all posts in this thread so if you think you explained it well in a previous post feel free to link that.
 

trinoxol

Active Member
Jun 13, 2019
147
422
Germany
> Bitcoin is something that would require extremely draconian measures for the government to fight against

No, they just need to make possession illegal and it's gone. That reduces its applicability to crime. You can't invest your life savings anymore. You can't buy anything legal with it. You can't cash in or out. It's gone.

That little store of value thing that BTC people are after can be destroyed at will.

When 5 billion people use Bitcoin daily it cannot be banned.