**PUTS ON TINFOIL HAT**

Satoshi Nakamoto has the letters NSA in the name. Bitcoin was made by the NSA< thats definite proof!

**TAKES OFF TINFOIL HAT**

Just reading more....Monero forked from Bytecoin which had hidden references to intel-agency recruitment group Cicada 3301 : http://www.coinssource.com/the-mysteries-and-puzzles-behind-the-cryptonote-technology/

more on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CryptoNote#Bytecoin_and_Cicada

good luck using XMR on Darknet

Bytecoin connection to Cicada 3301 is fake. Cicada 3301 has stated that anything not signed by them is not them. The Bytecoin stuff wasn't. End of story.

Actually if you want the real dirt, elliptic curve seed values are all backdoored by the NSA. You should follow that down the rabbit hole.

I'm fairly certain that if being able to discover a view key from a public address is possible, then being able to decipher a private key from a public DRK address would also be possible.

If that's the case, then both would be just as susceptible to deanonymization as importing the private key from a DRK wallet would reveal all destination addresses even if using darksent.

Additionally, deciphering the private key from a DRK address would immediately give one access to the funds, whereas with Monero you'd also have to decipher a separate spend key. Not saying much here.

Either way, you'd also have a whole lot of other problems if "TLA can compromise these coins" in this way.

For example, double spending would likely be possible as well, along with a whole other slew of things that are much more widely used than any cryptocurrency would be compromised as well.

Additionally, the Monero blockchain is littered with stealth address, whereas the DRK blockchain is riddled with actual public addresses, so that's a whole other step in the discovery of the anon history.

I thought the meetings were flies on the wall?

Lol yea right. Monero might be on the radar of someone in the deep state. But they are not going to be talking about this thread in a meeting. Thats silly.

This whole debate is becoming a bit superfluous IMO because it's concerning itself with completely the wrong criteria.

Bitcoin itself is already anonymous by virtue of having eliminated counterparties (the banking system) from the monetary system. There is no legal, informational or other link between a bitcoin address and an actual person - it can only be 'inferred'.

The problem therefore isn't one of 'hiding' and encryption, it's one of maintaining a high level of monetary fungibility so that one unit of the currency is reasonably indistinguishable from another in terms of value.

There already is a historical precedent for this and it has nothing to do with secrecy, encryption or hidden transactions. It's simply a monetary medium known as 'cash', which for thousands of years has implemented optimal fungibility through successive mixing of multiple inputs into a single output and recycling that process iteratively.

What is a cash drawer in a high street shop ? - a mixer ! People turn up all day long, buy stuff with cash, incrementing the balance in the cash drawer on a piecemeal basis. Than when trading closes, the cash is deposited as a lump sum in the bank (as a single 'output').

This is the model that should be carried into cryptocurrencies because it optimises both anonymity and visibility which, contrary to what many argue, are complimentary properties not exclusive ones. Bitcoin's publicly viewable ledger was one of the great breakthroughs of Satoshi's model. What it was missing was the 'cash drawer' recycling element that characterised base monetary media for centuries, keeping them fungible and re-enforcing their anonymity with respect to connecting ownership to real world persons.

By encrypting and hiding everything, all we're doing is burying all those great features that make the mechanics of the cryptocurrency visible, accountable and publicly 'ownable'. So what if someone manages to trace back a single cash movement to its originating address ? That doesn't amount to 'de-anonymisation' in terms of connecting that address to a person because there is a whole chain of 'cash drawer' steps that precede even the detected address (and the one before that and....). Even if it did there are far easier ways to connect a real person to an address than wasting months of effort and computing power trying to discover which 'cash drawer' originally contained my pizza payment.

This is why I've consistently argued that it's not a question of which approach does the best job of hiding a transaction, it's a question of which one enhances all monetary properties - in this particular case, fungibility & privacy - in a way that most optimally compliments all other properties of digital money. In that respect, this 'hiding from the NSA' stuff is a complete distraction. If they want to know who you are and what you spend your money on there are far easier ways for them to do that than trawling blockchains. That's only one of hundreds of electronic footprints that people have and probably the best protected anyway, regardless of what technology it deploys.

G2M is correct. If you're able to do two-way mapping of hash functions, then everybody is collectively screwed independent of XMR v. DRK or on-chain v. off-chain.

OK gotcha.

I wonder why people go on about the off-chain benefits....doesn't sound like any benefit at all in this case.