I’m not super fond of blockchains for a fungible currency solution. I’m not entirely aware of all the meta data in a transaction but by default your IP address, unique amount, transaction ID, date/time/block, sending and receiving address, the possibility to link to your other spending behavior and possibly your real world identity. Chainalysis is already disturbing IMO and it probably won’t get any better.
I do like the idea of the health of a monetary network being able to be viewed transparently, or governments having to only use transparent forms of transacting but the latter is a pipe dream. I almost feel as if society is walking into the bitcoin trap. The fact it is “hard money” with a set supply and not at the whimsy of modern monetary policy is very nice but without going above and beyond to gain some level of privacy on most blockchain networks, I find them falling short.
There are obviously some good alternatives out there to make privacy minded blockchains more, well private but it seems like a car being pushed by a horse.
Zk snarks are apparently quite computationally expensive compared to what is being done with the SN DBC implementation. DBCs on their own are very interesting but not compelling in their traditional form. Nothing is private and the mint being centralized and to be trusted.
What is happening here that @danda, @oetyng, Rusu, and @mav have been contributing to is absolute genius.
I think one of the most interesting bits is the obscurity provided by denominations. Totally unique in the cryptocurrency space, useful, and familiar to the general public.
No meta data, denominations, no public historical record of your transaction so perfectly fungible but yet you could still prove you sent or received a payment, half offline capability. There is probably something I’m missing but side by side comparison to bitcoin is apples and oranges.
SN DBCs are a cypherpunks wet dream.