[Discussion / poll] Does NuBits have a role as privacy enhanced digital cash?

[zoro]

I have the same opinion as Mark!
Remember the first steps of internet, it was mostly used by drug and weapon dealers and other bad doings.
But then internet started to be used by everyday simple people and now the most traffic is videos of cats and dogs
Back then it could be far more easy for goverments to shut down internet, but now it is nearly imposible.
Lets follow internet’s steps

[tomjoad]

But how would you deal with terrorists or mental health patients in such a system? Do we not have the obligation to make life difficult or remove those people abusing and destroying the systems we think are important for our social fabric or economy? Do we accept or ignore that as part of life and that we can’t do anything about it because 100% privacy guarantees our freedom? I’m struggling with that as the obvious solution, reducing privacy, appears to reduce freedom. But makes freedom alone life safe enough?

I say this as someone who despises Daesh and the religious extremism it represents: money needs to be agnostic to its users’ ideologies to maintain maximum utility. Compromising privacy will just lead to innocent users being targeted, while criminals and terrorists find new technologies to use. There may be users in the future who want to use NBT to fund freedom efforts against oppressive governments, but would be scared off because of the possibility of NuShareholders identifying and confiscating their funds if the efforts are deemed immoral. If we create systems that can arbitrate intent, criminals will just use cryptocurrencies with more privacy, and perhaps even target the users we expose.

Every great technology (cars, internet, mobile phones) all make it easier for bad people to do bad things, but we embrace those technologies because they result in a net positive for society. Digital currencies like NuBits will be no different.

I favor maximum privacy for NuBits transactions in the future, although I think it should not be an immediate development goal.

Relevant: “Apple, Google, Microsoft and Facebook warn weaker encryption makes the bad guys stronger”

[woodstockmerkle]

Nu’s approach to stability is on the radar of the Monero team.

Why not implement a Nubits price control mechanism and make Monero both private...

And @jordanlee has articulated that enhanced transactional privacy is one of his goals with Nu.

[masterOfDisaster]

Maybe Monero and Nu could profit by leaning on each other’s achievements?

[GrandMasterNu]

Hello, am new to the forum here, go easy on me

I’m here from the dash forums. I was thinking dash and nu would compliment each other well. I haven’t won them over yet but maybe some of you would like to come over and discuss things?

General Discussion

I’m going to post some idea on this forum, stay tuned.

[cryptog]

Tks for your proposal.

But

• rebrand Nubits to DashUSD and Nushares to DashShares

is not going to happen unless Nu is bought out by Dash, which not going to happen either with all dues respect.

I would suggest you fork Nu or become a NuShareholder.

[Cybnate]

I still think collaboration is the way to go in the long term for altcoin communities with a useful and valued functionality and not being a scam. However at this stage it is really hard to find synergy in communities let alone the merging of blockchains and communities.

Even though the merging of a privacy coin and a stable coin is a very interesting prospective, the question is whether it might be easier for both communities to just develop that themselves and compete until the best wins OR to develop a model where both coins/communities still exist on their own but have some smart cross-chain integration at near zero additional cost per transaction outside the fees for each coin.

I’m not an expert in this but I can imagine some automated contract which burns and creates coins on either side. Nubits can already do that on its own chain, but it won’t be easy in Dash I suspect. But even if possible, we will need a cross chain contract/transaction which would require a lot of development work on both sides imo as I’m not aware of any working examples of this.

So maybe integrating privacy functionality in NuBits and adding stablecoin functionality into Dash is the ‘cheaper’ and easier way to go. However I have to admit that I’m still intrigued by a cross chain solution between the two coins, we might just be too early with it. Maybe the B&C exchange could add such functionality/contract in time?

Edit: Nu would certainly benefit from this: https://www.dash.org/news/announcing-dash-evolution-and-the-worlds-first-decentralized-application-programming-interface-open-source/

[tomjoad]

is not going to happen unless Nu is bought out by Dash, which not going to happen either with all dues respect.

Agreed. Nu has the proper economic design (an equity asset, and a stable asset) and can begin to add “features” (like privacy) to its protocol over time. It will be far easier for Nu to add privacy than it would be for Dash to re-structure its economics, and so I doubt you’ll find much support for a rebranding of Nu.

That being said, we’re very interested in learning more about proposals to develop privacy features for Nu, and I bet shareholders would appreciate learning more.

[masterOfDisaster]

This is an opinion on a quite abstract level and not even remotely on a technical level.

I think Nu and Dash should continue doing that what they are good at:

• Nu is good at releasing stable crypto currency products (currently only NBT, pegged to USD; others might follow).
• Dash is good at privacy (any maybe at other things that I’m not aware of).

Maybe the both are better off doing good at what they are made for and find or develop some intersection that allows both of them to profit from the other, without giving up what they are extraordinarily good at.

Blocks & Chains Exchange (below BCE) might become a platform which can create that kind of intersection.
It allows Dash (users) access to a stable currency and NBT (users) access to a currency with privacy features.

Wouldn’t it make sense to prepare this kind of cooperation instead of trying to incorporate source code (and unnecessary dependencies)?
I’m a firm believer of the Unix philosophy, especially the DOTADIW aspect.

BCE needs reputed signers, marketing, coins that are traded, which require some support, etc.
It won’t be very long until BCE is hopefully at least in alpha state.

How does a cooperation on that level sound?

[jooize]

Wouldn’t it make sense to prepare this kind of cooperation instead of trying to incorporate source code (and unnecessary dependencies)?

Private transactions should be a core Nu feature. Using another coin doesn’t seem elegant at all. I see only extra risks and inconveniences, even with BCE.

I don’t see what kind of cooperation could make sense, unfortunately. Other than Nu paying for help with integration of a technology (as CryptoNote).

[Mark]

Ring Signature Confidential Transactions for Monero

1098.pdf

The author (Shen Noether) claims that The Ring Confidential Transactions protocol provides a strongly decentralized cryptocurrency (i.e. there is no privileged party) which has provable security estimates regarding the hiding of amounts, origins and destinations. In addition, coin generation in the Ring Confidential Transactions protocol is trustless and verifiably secure.

[nuclits]

The feasibility and best methods of including CryptoNote features in Nu needs research, but it is likely practical.

Id greatly look forward to this, keep in mind however that cyptonote blockchains grow at about 5x the normal rate, you may have to look into blockchain pruning or other tricks to help mitigate this.

Our rising market cap is beginning to give us some additional options for speeding up development. Perhaps the best way to get it done would be to bring in a CryptoNote/Monero/Bytecoin developer specifically for this purpose.

Good luck with that, its been brought up to the monero developers to implement a nubits style system to achieve the same ends and they were opposed to it, citing that a currency shouldnt be pegged to anything and that stability doesnt matter.

Why not implement a Nubits price control mechanism and make Monero both private...

[nuclits]

So maybe integrating privacy functionality in NuBits and adding
stablecoin functionality into Dash is the ‘cheaper’ and easier way to
go.

Ive tried dash, bought like $2 worth, tried to mix it, it took several days, i gave up and sold it. The whole coinjoin scheme has been proven time and time again to be flawed and it requires too much participation to use and it suffers from having all transactions posted on-chain. Even the masternodes system is just another layer to be gamed and broken. The only viable mixing solutions are either 3rd party mixers, or cryptonote, which unlike zerocoin is vetted by decades of research into ring-signatures.

[PinkyAndTheBrain]

So if I understand this https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/the-power-of-schnorr-the-signature-algorithm-to-increase-bitcoin-s-scale-and-privacy-1460642496 correctly, with the introduction of versioning and schnorr signatures, it opens the door to privacy in bitcoin with coinjoin?

this is so cool

maybe nubits should merge that in their fork once it is released

[Financisto]

Those “Schnorr signatures” seems to be a Big deal, especially when talking about multisig purposes (a tool so used by Nu to provide NBT liquidity).

Before that happens, stealth addresses is the short term solution imo…