Thanks. I had also just found it.
The message isn’t very clear and I suppose that optimistic people could still understand that a fully private native token could be out next March, however delusional.
There can’t be privacy if the data is linked to a blockchain.
Sorry @Mightyfool my bad. That’s related but not it or all of it, though scrolling back a bit I don’t see it.
He did say a bit more explicitly what I articulated above, and I think the prison comment was after that.
Maybe the discussion of privacy and a private native token (DBC like implementation being long preferred by the community) deserves its own thread as its off-topic to ACT. But I want to comment as well.
The concern over legal troubles, especially developing as a legal company, is completely understandable. That said, legal concerns over privacy rights is exactly why we need a private network and private token. The data and comms are private and E2E encrypted, which is great, data is sharded with self-encryption, quantum resistant, great, proxy nodes and TOR like routing / IP scrubbing are gone (the scrubbing being a step up from TOR) and maybe it’s not entirely necessary and it caused a lot of networking complications but the token.. we really do need the token to be native, scalable and as private as cash (with receipt agreement features for official commerce).
Anything less won’t allow people to be safe from coercion and control. Full stop.
To have a pseudonymous implementation would be only half as useful and not appealing enough to gain traction, imo. Perhaps there could be privacy centric Layer 2’s for Autonomi token but why not just have it baked in? The project is open source but the team can’t seem to pull this trigger but then again it seems most don’t know the codebase intimately enough and even if they did, would the PR be accepted? Would @maidsafe be able to still move forward with it if they themselves didn’t write the code but accepted the PR? Probably not.
Most roads lead to a fork in this discussion unless either @maidsafe do what they originally planned with the token or we have a scalable pseudonymous version with privacy centric layer 2’s.
Just venting on this a bit because I share the frustration but obviously no hate here. The team are doing what they can and a fantastic job at that. I can understand their concerns. No one wants there freedom taken away but it’s just ironic that that is the point of all of this..
I was referring to the high level technical design with DAGs and PoS consensus.
Ok, I thought maybe you dug out some links or pdfs worth reading in this subject.
This seems to be right place: