←back to thread

681 points Anon84 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
alphazard ◴[] No.46194268[source]
It's good to know everyone here is weary of crypto scams, but I don't see anyone accurately describing the significance of these technologies.

Bitcoin failed as a currency, and as that became realized, institutional investors pivoted to the "digital gold" scam, to keep people long, while they divest or hedge. The two reasons why it failed as a currency are transaction latency, and lack of fungibility. Transaction privacy is necessary for fungibility. Both of those are just technical problems; I predict that a distributed ledger currency with private transactions like Monero, but a faster consensus algorithm like Avalanche or Hedera will become popular in the next decade. It's likely to be an Ethereum L2.

That is just the currency aspect of distributed ledgers. It's just one use case that we don't yet have the technology to properly address. The exciting thing that distributed ledgers enable is cryptographic institutions. These technologies allow us to solve coordination problems more easily than ever before. Democracies, businesses, communities, projects can all be coordinated better and more honestly using distributed ledgers. It's not an overstatement to say that distributed ledgers are as big of an advancement for human coordination as democracy was.

If you've been soured on these technologies because most of the currencies built with them are scams, I would encourage you to learn about them as if they were just incredibly robust databases that even governments would struggle to take down. Surely you can think of something cool to build with that, which doesn't involve money.

replies(11): >>46194408 #>>46194850 #>>46195189 #>>46195257 #>>46195322 #>>46195428 #>>46195432 #>>46195697 #>>46196021 #>>46196135 #>>46203163 #
efnx ◴[] No.46195257[source]
What do you think about zcash? They seem to have solved the private transactions problem, have a better anonymity set than monero (and are accepted at exchanges) and are actively working on faster consensus.

Disclaimer, I currently work at a zcash corp.

replies(1): >>46195749 #
1. alphazard ◴[] No.46195749[source]
IMO the hard problem here is PoS consensus with the private transactions. It seems like the stakers have to come up from the depths of privacy to participate in consensus. Maybe there is a way to do private staking, but that makes the network very difficult to understand and build confidence in. So I don't see upgrading to faster consensus to be a small incremental improvement, it's fundamental.

A separate issue is that both Monero and ZCash are not post-quantum secure, while many of the new zkSTARK VMs are. The ledger lives forever, and state actors will eventually decrypt the transactions if the cryptography can be broken. At that point it seems like it's better just to build the currency product in one of the zk VMs.

replies(1): >>46198423 #
2. dlubarov ◴[] No.46198423[source]
In Zcash a quantum attacker could include invalid transactions with forged proofs, but I'm not sure they could actually break Zcash's privacy properties?

I'd need to review the design details more to say for sure, but e.g. from what I recall Pedersen hashes are used in the commitment tree, but not for nullifiers. Those use blake hashes (which are plausibly post-quantum secure), IIRC.

There's also the underlying prover layer, but many proof systems actually have information-theoretic zero-knowledge properties (assuming a suitable source of randomness), even if their soundness guarantees are based on assumptions like DLP.