If an attacker fully de-anonymized the protocol, there is no point to attack it explicitly. If the protocol has no value besides privacy, not supposed to be scalable nor achieving global monetary status, it is more valuable to leave it as it is.
pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @21stackage 30 Jan 2023
Out of curiosity, how would people know if Monero has been 51'd?
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @notgeld OP 30 Jan 2023
Auditability is another problem I don't touch. I was just curious about that if the only major sales point of cryptocurrency is privacy there may be some value in preserving an image that the protocol is private whereas it is not.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @21stackage 30 Jan 2023
Does a sousveillant, transparent ledger obviate the need for KYC/AML? Privacy is a feature, not a value proposition, and the need to transact under cloak-and-dagger is overstated in the whole space (few situations call for this in the first place). I'm all for opt-in privacy when it comes to Bitcoin, but I think that the transparent ledger is a huge advantage overall
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @demitasse 30 Jan 2023
monero's transactions are actually smaller than the coinjoins in bitcoin and offer much better privacy. so far nobody has been able to deanonymize it
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @NorthKoreanHostage 30 Jan 2023
Then why hard fork every 6 months?
Oh yeah. The devs control it. This is extremely problematic, especially for the store of value proposition.
Monero is best used for as little time as possible and only for it's privacy features.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @notgeld OP 30 Jan 2023
Could it be that hard-forks are independent? If eavesdropper keeps silently look at all monero transactions they might be pretty irrelevant.
reply