You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: TheShadowBrokers Monthly Dump Service - June 2017 Update
Steem has absolutely no privacy features yet so it wouldn't be a good choice. Confidential transactions were on the roadmap at one point but not clear when if ever they will be a priority.
To be fair, Monero's "confidentiality" has also been somewhat broken, according to this paper. The reason I somewhat jokingly suggest Steem is due to them already using the platform :)
Edit: Apparently, as some users have pointed out, this attack is mitigated against. I should have researched further before jumping to a conclusion based off one paper.
No, it hasn't. The paper just outlines the methods and basic metrics of old and known issues that have been mitigated since.
@antanst is correct, Fluffypony addressed this already a while back. It involved all CryptoNote based coins.
there's a rebuttal here: https://getmonero.org/2017/04/19/an-unofficial-response-to-an-empirical-analysis-of-linkability.html
Thank you, I've added a correction. Interesting subject matter, will be doing further reading.
Hey,
quite nice that you're so open to willing to rethink your 'position'. If any more questions there's always the monero stack exchange : https://monero.stackexchange.com/ or the monero reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/
Although they haven't collected any rewards. It seems Steem is being used exclusively for the censorship-resistance aspect.
So it appears you have no idea what you're talking about. But nice "try".
Eh, so I misunderstood something I had read. I've now read the rebuttal, edited my above comment to acknowledge this (while retaining the original content), and we can all get along with our lives in a civil fashion, right?
That paper is BS none of that is current - none of that can work - all of it was fixed ages ago. FUD
I acknowledge this in the comment with an edit. To be fair, the Monero team only (as far as I could see) published an unofficial rebuttal as opposed to an official one with a request for correction. Surprised that the authors of the paper haven't issued a retraction/update of some form to explain its been fixed anywhere easily findable...
(I'm not one of the authors of that paper.)
As far as I know there's nothing incorrect in the paper that needs to be retracted.
You can see one of the authors of the paper — Andrew Miller — being interviewed by a journalist about it here: https://cointelegraph.com/news/monero-transactions-history-can-be-revealed-and-exposed-research The journalist specifically asks "Say I downloaded a Monero wallet right now and got some and tried to send them for a transaction. How linkable would a transaction be today?".
Since some people posted speculations about my company's involvement in the research and our motivations, our company posted this statement: https://forum.z.cash/t/on-improving-user-understanding-progressing-tech-with-science/15387
By the way, check out the awesome block explorer that the paper came with: https://monerolink.com