While I consider this good news (and I've experimented with Anoncoin in
its early stages), I do have some questions - I hope they'll be
understood purely as constructive questions intended to improve any
processes which you are undertaking.

1) As I have long been aware of, there have been differences between
original zerocoin developers and the anoncoin team relating to how zero
could or should be implemented within Anoncoin. In particular, the
following public thread (highlighted at a particular point in the
discussion) was helpful in understanding these differences:
https://twitter.com/secparam/status/449619152685522944

Please note that I have cc'd secparam's public e-mail address as shown
on github here so hopefully there will be a response.

When last I checked, I didn't see a clear resolution to this issue. Not
that there isn't one, it seemed that there was. But it was obvious to
me, that @secparam had identified clear problems that would need to be
addressed, and the development that the Anoncoin team had done since
March of 2014 to the present, didn't seem to address those core issues
that secparam had brought up.

2) Why not wait until November (or more likely, December) 2014, which is
when zerocash supposedly will be released, then you have some options to
compare?

3) I suggest avoiding use of wild statements. I acknowledge that I use
them from time to time... my latest was to post onto a Bitcoin Core
release thread, that the words, 'Bitcoin Core Release' could be turned
into a two-word anagram: 'Deliberate Coercions.'
However, that was all in fun, and that said, I just wish to avoid the
use of wild statements generally. What I refer to here is that
statement in which someone in Anoncoin said, and I quote in part,

"Even more anonymous than the Ring-signature"

I could say all kind of things about that statement. But it does seem
like a wild statement to make a claim that something you are testing is
"even more anonymous than" anything. State what it does and how it does
it. Invite people to test it and accept criticism. A serious issue
with Foundation-oriented work is that it can easily cultivate a
walled-garden sort of thinking where very little if any criticism is
allowed. Thus begins downfall. Thus begins problems.

Again, I hope only for the best in development of Anoncoin and would
like to see things succeed, but I am concerned that the technical issues
are not yet addressed and hope that there is some more productive
collaboration between authors of different projects in the near future.

Other general thoughts:

https://github.com/Gnos1s/ufo_server - details on this should be more
front and center on pages such as Anoncoin's primary page
https://github.com/Anoncoin/anoncoin - make it easier to find. Link to
this is buried on waaaaaaaaaay low right hand of Anoncoin's primary page
under Downloads at https://anoncoin.net/index.php/downloads -- the
github just needs to be a lot easier to find.


-Odinn




On 2014-09-28 07:54, Matthew Holt wrote:
> Anoncoin <https://anoncoin.net> will soon be implementing the Zerocoin
> <https://wiki.anoncoin.net/Zerocoin> protocol. Which has long been
> considered the true holy grail of cryptocoin transaction anonymity
> IMHO.
> Even more anonymous than the Ring-signature
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_signature> technique of the
> Cryptonote
> protocol coins like Monero. The Anoncoin devs aim to have it on their
> test-net by October the 15th
> <https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=227287.msg8997381#msg8997381>
> and
> their main-net by November the 1st. They hope to manage to implement
> Zerocoin in a trustless manner using an RSA UFO's
> <https://wiki.anoncoin.net/RSA_UFO> technique.
>
> In the future though with Bitcoin side-chains it may be possible to
> have a
> Bitcoin Zerocoin side-chain to move bitcoin in and out of in a
> trustless
> p2p manner. Although it currently looks like we're still way off
> Bitcoin
> side-chains yet. So even further for a Bitcoin Zerocoin side-chain.
> Although Anoncoin are still on target for putting Zerocoin on their
> main-net by November the 1st.
>
> MH
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem