Is ecash private enough for dark markets? \ stacker news ~privacy

pull down to refresh

Is ecash private enough for dark markets?

898 sats \ 34 comments \ @purpurato 16 Dec privacy

zaps forwarded to @calle (50%)

I think one of the most valid critics against bitcoin is about its privacy and it's one that Monero people always cite. One argument that I think is good is that dark markets are always transacted with XMR, showing that it's the only private solution out there. I guess BTC has coinjoins and other tools, but they comes at a cost and do not always assure full privacy. There's also lightning, but the receiving node privacy is not that good either.

I don't know much about ecash or dark markets, but the way I see it ecash is very hard to track once it leaves the mint, right? Would that be a solution for fully private transactions? Is it actually being used now on those markets?

Maybe @calle can enlighten us on this.

view all related items

227 sats \ 4 replies \ @supertestnet 17 Dec

I think one of the most valid critics against bitcoin is about its privacy and it's one that Monero people always cite.

The privacy available on the lightning network is superior to the privacy available on monero.

As just one example, consider receiver privacy. On monero, the sender always knows what address on the blockchain received the money he sent to the recipient; on lightning, this is not true. The recipient's node pubkey does not receive the money, it's only used for communication. The address on the blockchain that received the money is a 2 of 2 multisig that is hidden via the use of short channel identifiers and blinded paths. And the transaction putting it there is an off-chain transaction between the receiver and their channel partner -- the sender does not get to see it. So lightning "receiver privacy" is better, in this respect, than monero.

One argument that I think is good is that dark markets are always transacted with XMR, showing that it's the only private solution out there.

Not all DNMs use monero; some use lightning instead. Two darknet markets that support lightning are Bisq2 and Robosats.

There is also open source DNM software that supports lightning (Squeak Road) but I don't know of any significant DNMs that use it.

218 sats \ 0 replies \ @aljaz 17 Dec

One of the downsides of LN for DNMs is the always online and interactive nature of LN which brings its own opsec issues

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 17 Dec

So lightning "receiver privacy" is better, in this respect, than monero.

What about the IP address of the receiver? Isn't that gossiped around?

Two darknet markets that support lightning

Are there people who sell weed on Bisq2 or Robosats?

44 sats \ 0 replies \ @supertestnet 17 Dec

What about the IP address of the receiver? Isn't that gossiped around?

No. The recipient's node is not exposed to the network unless you specifically configure your node to route payments, and even then, you can use tor to hide your IP.

Are there people who sell weed on Bisq2 or Robosats?

I haven't seen any.

32 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 17 Dec

What about the IP address of the receiver? Isn't that gossiped around?

Mhh ok, I guess you can avoid that by running your node only on Tor.

But still: All arguments about receiver privacy on lightning seem to ignore that it's still much easier to achieve privacy on monero since it is private by default. For example, with monero, you don't need to run a Lightning node to receive payments.

112 sats \ 0 replies \ @guts 17 Dec

You’re absolutely right that Bitcoin's privacy is flawed out of the box. Coinjoins, while useful, are not perfect—they are expensive, take time, and often leave detectable patterns on the blockchain that a skilled observer can analyze. As for Lightning, while it improves privacy for routing transactions, the receiving node can often still leak key information.

Why Monero? Monero was built with privacy as a core feature, not as an afterthought. Every transaction is private by default, combining tools like stealth addresses, ring signatures, and RingCT (Ring Confidential Transactions) to obscure sender, receiver, and amount. This means no additional cost, effort, or technical know-how is needed to ensure anonymity.

Regarding eCash (such as systems like Cashu), you’re correct that it can offer strong privacy once tokens leave the mint since transactions are not recorded on a public ledger. However, it has its limitations. Unlike Monero, it typically relies on centralized mints, which introduces trust and censorship risks. If a mint shuts down or is compromised, users lose their ability to transact or redeem their eCash. Dark markets, therefore, are unlikely to adopt eCash widely without decentralized solutions.

Why dark markets gravitate to Monero: It works. Full stop. XMR provides default privacy with a decentralized network and robust cryptographic assurances, without relying on third parties like mints. That’s why it’s not just used in theory—it’s actively the de facto currency for anonymous online commerce.

While eCash shows promise as an alternative for small-scale private payments, Monero’s trustless, proven privacy solution makes it unmatched for anyone serious about financial anonymity.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Baleberg 17 Dec

What about the silent payments?

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @stack_harder 17 Dec

what happens when a monero holder/ DN recipient wants to cash out etc tho ?

p2p for smaller amounts i guess, but if they were balling on drunk money, surely they are going to have some issues pop up, whether using lightning, ecash or monero etc

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @stack_harder 17 Dec

meant to say balling on drug money, not drunk money

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @BeeAye 16 Dec

the problem is the risk for the mint, as i see it, of running an ecash for its darknet store. yes, the customers' funds would be very difficult to track what purchases they made, but the mint still needs to serve as the clearing house from their ecash to lightning...so that would be very risky.

193 sats \ 1 reply \ @supertestnet 17 Dec

a darknet market can integrate ecash without telling an ecash mint what it's doing, without even *communicating* with an ecash mint

by design, mints don't know who their users are

so the mint would never know a darknet market was one of its users

11 sats \ 0 replies \ @BeeAye 17 Dec

this is true, if a mint became reputable and reliable on its own, there is no need for a store to be a mint, and then there would be no distinction between the store and the customer.

106 sats \ 21 replies \ @Skipper 16 Dec

it's one that Monero people always cite.

Monero is more of a cult at this point.

BTC has coinjoins and other tools, but they comes at a cost and do not always assure full privacy.

LN has good enough privacy, Liquid-BTC as well. You can always clean the sats further by using bunch of LN wallets and/or swaps. I find coinjoins to be a little too expensive, even when fees are 2-3 sats/vB.

You won't find anything good on darknets anyways. It's mostly drugs. Don't do drugs.

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @purpurato OP 17 Dec

The question was about ecash and its privacy features.

I don't know much about darknets because I believe as you said it's mostly for drugs and other stuff that I'm not into. But these edge cases do bring some important questions about privacy characteristics that money should have. There is no real freedom without privacy and a good form of money should allow individuals to transact without revealing what they do.

I don't do drugs but I am ready to defend your right to get high if you want to, it's your life it's your choice. Can ecash accomplish that?

11 sats \ 1 reply \ @Skipper 17 Dec

There is no real freedom without privacy and a good form of money should allow individuals to transact without revealing what they do.

If we didn't have coinjoins, swaps, LN, liquid-btc, eCash, then Monero might be useful. As things stand now, I see no point in using Monero.

Bitcoin is a superior form of money, and LN already provides good privacy for all people, except perhaps the darknet drug junkies who have their brains fried.

11 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 17 Dec

I see no point in using Monero.

it's cheap and easy to use privately and you don't need to run a node to receive payments

except perhaps the darknet drug junkies who have their brains fried.

so you're saying it does not provide good privacy for the people who need it the most and that privacy on lightning depends on the government not caring enough about finding you which can change which should mean it does not have good privacy

55 sats \ 15 replies \ @guts 17 Dec

Your point against Monero is that they are cult, are you serious?

11 sats \ 13 replies \ @freetx 17 Dec

Not so much a cult, just ultimately a shitcoin that offers no technical benefits over Liquid.

Monero may be "good" as a transactional coin, but one should never hold it for any length of time. In that sense its more like an eCash in practice.

Meanwhile, since LBTC (Liquid BTC) is in fact backed by real BTC (BTC is put into a verifiable multisig and equivalent amount of LBTC is minted), it makes it more suitable for holding for more than just immediate term use.

I'm not recommending anyone use Liquid-BTC as long-term storage, but certainly its fine for holding for medium term use of a few months or whatever.

Since LBTC can be utilized to send Lightning payments it offers all the technical benefits of LN with the "confidential transactions" of Monero and the security/debasement protection of BTC.

Monero is an idea which was cool in 2016 or whatever, but it no longer severs a purpose.

53 sats \ 2 replies \ @stack_harder 17 Dec

Matthew Kratter calls monero it 'hot potato' money, which i think is quite accurate

11 sats \ 0 replies \ @guts 17 Dec

Matthew Kratter is a maxi hot potato

11 sats \ 0 replies \ @freetx 17 Dec

Precisely. Its "Confidential USD"

20 sats \ 9 replies \ @guts 17 Dec

Monero and Liquid BTC serve different purposes, and dismissing Monero ignores its unique value:

Privacy: Monero offers default privacy with ring signatures, stealth addresses, and RingCT, ensuring full anonymity. Liquid BTC’s Confidential Transactions only hide amounts, not identities or links.
Decentralization: Monero is trustless, while Liquid relies on a federation to maintain the peg, making it less censorship-resistant and more centralized.
Store of Value: Monero’s capped supply and growing adoption as a private transactional currency support its long-term value. The claim it’s unsuitable for holding is speculative.
Lightning Comparison: Monero’s low fees make second-layer solutions unnecessary for small transactions, avoiding Lightning’s complexity and custodial risks.
Adoption: Monero is a proven tool for private, uncensored transactions in real-world use cases, offering a level of privacy and decentralization unmatched by Liquid or BTC.

Monero remains indispensable for those needing true financial sovereignty, privacy, and trustless operation.

21 sats \ 4 replies \ @Skipper 17 Dec

Store of Value: Monero’s capped supply

It's not capped lmao

11 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 17 Dec

🤣🤣🤣

11 sats \ 0 replies \ @Skipper 17 Dec

Exactly 😆

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @guts 17 Dec

Monero is effectively capped with ‘tail emission’ of 0.6 XMR per block after the main supply is mined, the inflation rate decreases perpetually approaching zero over time, making Monero disinflationary.

16 sats \ 0 replies \ @Skipper 20h

Bitcoin is absolute scarcity, Monero is not. HFSP

32 sats \ 3 replies \ @freetx 17 Dec

Liquid BTC’s Confidential Transactions only hide amounts, not identities or links.

Using Liquid cross chain with LN (onion routing) solves those issues.

Decentralization: Monero is trustless, while Liquid relies on a federation to maintain the peg, making it less censorship-resistant and more centralized.

True

Store of Value: Monero’s capped supply ....The claim it’s unsuitable for holding is speculative.

Prove it. There is no way you can have both "hidden amounts" and "provable supply cap". The entire reason Liquid opted not to hide amounts was to avoid this issue.

Monero’s low fees make second-layer solutions unnecessary for small transactions, avoiding Lightning’s complexity and custodial risks.

Basically true.

Adoption: Monero is a proven tool for private, uncensored transactions in real-world use cases, offering a level of privacy and decentralization unmatched by Liquid or BTC.

Outside of silk-road / dark-web, monereo has no real use. In fact, a legitimate website or company would be barred from accepting monero because of the regulatory risk involved. This basically paints a huge target on all monero users and isolates you for further scrutiny.

The entire benefit of Liquid+LN combo is that you have gained the confidential aspects but are still using the most widely accepted form of crypto....

11 sats \ 2 replies \ @guts 23h

Liquid + LN may suit niche scenarios, but Monero provides unmatched privacy, decentralization, and simplicity for real-world, censorship-resistant use.

Liquid + LN adds complexity but doesn’t achieve Monero’s default privacy. LN requires on-chain BTC to open channels, leaving a trail. Monero's privacy is built-in no need for additional layers or tools to obscure sender, receiver, and amounts.

Adoption and use cases of Monero highlight its true value: a permissionless and uncensorable currency. It's not just for the dark web but it's widely used by individuals and organizations needing financial privacy. Liquid, tied to BTC, still relies on a trusted federation, making it less ideal in censorship-prone environments.

Associating Monero solely with illicit use is outdated. Privacy is a right, not a crime. Legitimate use cases (e.g., donations, salary payments) grow as awareness of financial surveillance increases. Monero users aren’t 'isolated'; they’re safeguarded from mass surveillance.

11 sats \ 1 reply \ @Skipper 20h

Why do you sound ChatGPT'ed?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @guts 16h

That's your best argument?

reply on another page

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 23h

Where to buy or trade monero?

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @037447d9ca 17 Dec

ok boomer

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @itsrealfake 17 Dec

Monero is more of a cult at this point.

hmm... does seem that way sometimes.

on the other hand, Bitcoin is too ;) (or at least it was for a long time. we're a bit more mainstream now)