[Bitcoin-development] questions about bitcoin-XT code fork & non-consensus hard-fork

[juan.g71@gmail.com (Juan)]

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 17:04:56 +0000
Sean Lynch <seanl@literati.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 10:41 PM Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 11:39:00 +1000
> > "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Way back in the beginning I said an ever growing block chain would
> > > cause unacceptable costs and inconvenience, and lo and behold, it
> > > is causing substantial and ever growing costs and inconvenience.
> > >
> >
> >         But look at the bright side! Every single transaction gets
> >         recorded and stored, until jesus destroys the universe
> > (it's in the bible). What else can privacy advocates wish for?
> >
> >
> Transparency is also useful, and privacy can be built on top of it
> through the use of, say, Chaumian e-cash backed by a blockchain-based
> cryptocurrency. It's a lot easier for the issuing organization to
> prove that it has a certain amount of Bitcoin than a certain amount
> of gold. E-gold and even one of the gold ETFs have been accused of
> double-counting. 

	Well, I wasn't advocating any solution in particular, just
	making a snarky remark on one of bitcoin's most notable (IMO at
	least) properties. 

	But since you mention something like e-gold (or similar
	systems) : yes, I realize they have the same problmes any
	ordinary bank has - how to make sure they are not lying. 




>And if you're using Tor to connect to the network
> and break up your transactions, it's pretty easy to obfuscate, even
> without ZeroCoin, and ZeroCoin just fixes the whole problem.


	I guess it's wait and see for me. I freely admit I'm tad a
	skeptical about the whole crypto infrastructure... (not even
	taking 'solutions' like tor into account...)