remove cryptocurrencies #269

jonah · 2017-07-14T19:51:31Z

kewde commented

2017-07-14 19:51:31 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Description

I'm exploring all viable options to the conflict.

HTML Preview

http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/blob/remove-crypto/index.html

### Description I'm exploring all viable options to the conflict. ### HTML Preview http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/blob/remove-crypto/index.html

jonah requested changes 2017-07-14 19:53:01 +00:00

jonah left a comment

no. there are lots of bad CCs claiming to be private. so we should recommend those that are actually good.

kewde commented

2017-07-14 20:01:04 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

We don't have an obligation to list every type of tool here, there is a lot of conflict around the subject and I've had enough of it.

👍 2

ghost commented

2017-07-14 20:04:33 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

It's a community project and most agreed on the order Monero, Zcash, Bitcoin with good arguments.

It's a community project and *most* agreed on the order Monero, Zcash, Bitcoin with good arguments.

👍 4 😆 1

kewde commented

2017-07-14 20:32:09 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I have never seen any on these people contribute to privacytools before. Maybe we have a different view of what consists as "community", but a few random people popping by, trying to win over a debate over one particular subject by just generating a lot of noise is not what is part of my definition.

kewde commented

2017-07-14 20:32:58 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Anyways, as a final resort I've opened #269 to remove this section if there's no consensus.

ghost commented

2017-07-14 21:37:08 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

put the coins in alphabetical order then instead of removing.

#270

put the coins in alphabetical order then instead of removing. #270

👍 2

kewde commented

2017-07-16 00:11:39 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@privacytoolsIO

privacytoolsIO commented

2017-07-16 00:21:44 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Hi guys, sorry for joining in so late. I also think it's for the best to remove the cryptocurrency section for now, to resolve this issue. We're not obligated to list cryptocurrencies. Instead we can link to this Wikipedia Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cryptocurrencies

👍 2 👎 6

ghost commented

2017-07-16 08:31:31 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@privacytoolsIO #270 was a much better solution

bakku commented

2017-07-16 08:59:22 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@privacytoolsIO I have the same opinion as @Shifterovich. The Wikipedia site lists a vast collection of currencies where a user does not know which one to choose. Ordering them alphabetically limits them to three and does not prioritize on any of them - thus resolving this issue as well.

ajs-xmr commented

2017-07-16 13:53:13 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

It is not a question of obligation, but a shared view of promoting tools that advance the protection of fundamental rights. Engaging in debate on the efficacy of such tools is an important part of being critical and looking after the best interest of the individual.

ghost commented

2017-07-16 14:46:32 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

We're not obliged to run this website, and yet we do. Listing tools in alphabetical order is much better than not listing them at all. I also believe that good cryptocurrencies are one of the more important things to recommend.

👍 1

sanecito commented

2017-07-16 15:45:30 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Whatever technical grievances any one person here may have with one of the three originally listed coins, I think we can hopefully agree that listing said three in alphabetical desc is better than a wiki and a higher chance that a user will fall for a privacy coin based scam ala ShadowCash, TorCoin, etc. If maintainers truly care about better informing users on privacy in CC (and having users avoid privacy scams) surely it can do better than a wiki link.

kewde commented

2017-07-16 16:28:44 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

The section is currently removed completely, there is no link to Wikipedia at the moment. I don't think linking to Wikipedia is an improvement either.

ghost commented

2017-07-16 16:30:59 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

However adding alphabetically-sorted cryptocurrencies is, even though you don't like that suggestion because that puts Monero on the second place and Zcash on the third one.

PrivacyCDN commented

2017-07-16 17:49:10 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Hi;

Rather than try to make a specific determination, AND if there is sufficient time/resources, would it not make sense to treat cryptocurrencies the way that VPNs and email providers are treated. That is to say create a table with a set of criteria that can be validated objectively. Do that instead of ranking and let the user select which set of criteria matter to them. Cryptocurrencies are not my area of expertise so I won’t weigh in on what the appropriate criteria are, but from the history of this conversation it does appear that there are a reasonably small number of criteria that both matter with respect to privacy AND can be validated or verified.

John Wunderlich
@PrivacyCDN https://twitter.com/PrivacyCDN

Privacy Tools:
Kantara Initiative https://kantarainitiative.org/: Consent Receipt Specification https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/infosharing/Consent+Receipt+Specification
JLINC Labs https://www.jlinclabs.com/: Data Provenance Solutions https://www.jlinclabs.com/solutions/

On Jul 16, 2017, at 11:45, Scott Anecito notifications@github.com wrote:

Whatever technical grievances any one person here may have with one of the three originally listed coins, I think we can hopefully agree that listing said three in alphabetical desc is better than a wiki and a higher chance that a user will fall for a privacy coin based scam ala ShadowCash, TorCoin, etc. If maintainers truly care about better informing users on privacy in CC (and having users avoid privacy scams) surely it can do better than a wiki link.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/pull/269#issuecomment-315617582, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADTJ9qwNCsEOdDKkYCEBiU5MDXhkUqT4ks5sOjAagaJpZM4OYqzt.

--

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient
you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any
action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited.

Hi; Rather than try to make a specific determination, AND if there is sufficient time/resources, would it not make sense to treat cryptocurrencies the way that VPNs and email providers are treated. That is to say create a table with a set of criteria that can be validated objectively. Do that instead of ranking and let the user select which set of criteria matter to them. Cryptocurrencies are not my area of expertise so I won’t weigh in on what the appropriate criteria are, but from the history of this conversation it does appear that there are a reasonably small number of criteria that both matter with respect to privacy AND can be validated or verified. John Wunderlich @PrivacyCDN <https://twitter.com/PrivacyCDN> Privacy Tools: Kantara Initiative <https://kantarainitiative.org/>: Consent Receipt Specification <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/infosharing/Consent+Receipt+Specification> JLINC Labs <https://www.jlinclabs.com/>: Data Provenance Solutions <https://www.jlinclabs.com/solutions/> > On Jul 16, 2017, at 11:45, Scott Anecito <notifications@github.com> wrote: > > Whatever technical grievances any one person here may have with one of the three originally listed coins, I think we can hopefully agree that listing said three in alphabetical desc is better than a wiki and a higher chance that a user will fall for a privacy coin based scam ala ShadowCash, TorCoin, etc. If maintainers truly care about better informing users on privacy in CC (and having users avoid privacy scams) surely it can do better than a wiki link. > > — > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/pull/269#issuecomment-315617582>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADTJ9qwNCsEOdDKkYCEBiU5MDXhkUqT4ks5sOjAagaJpZM4OYqzt>. > -- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

👍 1

ghost commented

2017-07-16 17:54:05 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Except there are already ~100 comments discussing whether Monero or Zcash is technically superior. Should we link to whitepapers and let users decide? Objective criteria is privacy by default, speed, etc -- in most/all of which Monero is superior. But we can't make a table with that criteria without including some criteria regarding the technical side.

PrivacyCDN commented

2017-07-16 18:10:32 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I’m just suggesting that we don’t have to decide which is superior. If
privacy is about anything it is about user choice, not telling users what
is best for them. Provide them with sufficient notice/information and let
them decide for their use cases. A table with a limited set of criteria
set out seems to do that

For each cryptocurrency (with an explanation of each criteria):

Are anonymous transactions possible? Yes | With Conditions | No
Is the system privacy protective by default: Yes | With Conditions | No
Average time to validate a transaction:

and so on…

John Wunderlich, BA, MBA
@PrivacyCDN https://twitter.com/PrivacyCDN

Privacy Tools

Kantara Initiative https://kantarainitiative.org/: Consent Receipt
Specification
https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/infosharing/Consent+Receipt+Specification

JLINC Labs https://www.jlinclabs.com/: Data Provenance Solutions
https://www.jlinclabs.com/solutions/

On 16 July 2017 at 13:54, Samuel Shifterovich notifications@github.com
wrote:

Except there are already ~100 comments discussing whether Monero or Zcash
is technically superior. Should we link to whitepapers and let users
decide? Objective criteria is privacy by default, speed, etc -- in most/all
of which Monero is superior. But we can't make a table with that criteria
without including some criteria regarding the technical side.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/pull/269#issuecomment-315625398,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADTJ9keCRNDKBvhSeclN09TM462B7llRks5sOk49gaJpZM4OYqzt
.

--

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient
you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any
action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited.

I’m just suggesting that we don’t have to decide which is superior. If privacy is about anything it is about user choice, not telling users what is best for them. Provide them with sufficient notice/information and let them decide for their use cases. A table with a limited set of criteria set out seems to do that For each cryptocurrency (with an explanation of each criteria): 1. Are anonymous transactions possible? Yes | With Conditions | No 2. Is the system privacy protective by default: Yes | With Conditions | No 3. Average time to validate a transaction: and so on… John Wunderlich, BA, MBA @PrivacyCDN <https://twitter.com/PrivacyCDN> *Privacy Tools* Kantara Initiative <https://kantarainitiative.org/>: Consent Receipt Specification <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/infosharing/Consent+Receipt+Specification> JLINC Labs <https://www.jlinclabs.com/>: Data Provenance Solutions <https://www.jlinclabs.com/solutions/> On 16 July 2017 at 13:54, Samuel Shifterovich <notifications@github.com> wrote: > Except there are already ~100 comments discussing whether Monero or Zcash > is technically superior. Should we link to whitepapers and let users > decide? Objective criteria is privacy by default, speed, etc -- in most/all > of which Monero is superior. But we can't make a table with that criteria > without including some criteria regarding the technical side. > > — > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/pull/269#issuecomment-315625398>, > or mute the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADTJ9keCRNDKBvhSeclN09TM462B7llRks5sOk49gaJpZM4OYqzt> > . > -- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

ghost commented

2017-07-16 18:12:29 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Are anonymous transactions possible

Monero: Yes Zcash: Yes, yet one may be much more secure than the other

> Are anonymous transactions possible `Monero: Yes Zcash: Yes`, yet one may be much more secure than the other

PrivacyCDN commented

2017-07-16 18:35:09 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

You may be putting your thumb on the scale there. Adding the qualifier that
one is more secure than the other suggests a second criteria rather than
modifying the first one

How about :

Are anonymous transactions possible: Yes/No | (link to assertion/evidence
if available)

Reasonable security controls: Yes/No | (link to assertion/evidence if
available)

Open Source: Yes/No | (link to assertion/evidence if available)

Public Governance: Yes/No | (link to assertion/evidence if available)

John Wunderlich
@PrivacyCDN https://twitter.com/PrivacyCDN

Privacy Tools

Kantara Initiative https://kantarainitiative.org/: Consent Receipt
Specification
https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/infosharing/Consent+Receipt+Specification

JLINC Labs https://www.jlinclabs.com/: Data Provenance Solutions
https://www.jlinclabs.com/solutions/

On 16 July 2017 at 14:12, Samuel Shifterovich notifications@github.com
wrote:

Are anonymous transactions possible

Monero: Yes Zcash: Yes, yet one may be much more secure than the other

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/pull/269#issuecomment-315626548,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADTJ9sAzYp52Dmy6AjyyqcXNwG7IzmLyks5sOlKOgaJpZM4OYqzt
.

--

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient
you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any
action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited.

You may be putting your thumb on the scale there. Adding the qualifier that one is more secure than the other suggests a second criteria rather than modifying the first one How about : Are anonymous transactions possible: Yes/No | (link to assertion/evidence if available) Reasonable security controls: Yes/No | (link to assertion/evidence if available) Open Source: Yes/No | (link to assertion/evidence if available) Public Governance: Yes/No | (link to assertion/evidence if available) John Wunderlich @PrivacyCDN <https://twitter.com/PrivacyCDN> *Privacy Tools* Kantara Initiative <https://kantarainitiative.org/>: Consent Receipt Specification <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/infosharing/Consent+Receipt+Specification> JLINC Labs <https://www.jlinclabs.com/>: Data Provenance Solutions <https://www.jlinclabs.com/solutions/> On 16 July 2017 at 14:12, Samuel Shifterovich <notifications@github.com> wrote: > Are anonymous transactions possible > > Monero: Yes Zcash: Yes, yet one may be much more secure than the other > > — > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/pull/269#issuecomment-315626548>, > or mute the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADTJ9sAzYp52Dmy6AjyyqcXNwG7IzmLyks5sOlKOgaJpZM4OYqzt> > . > -- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

sanecito commented

2017-07-18 19:01:26 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I was out for a couple days, but hopefully I can appeal to the people (largely @kewde given they committed and made the issue) who think that the best resolution is to simply remove the CC section and let users fall for scams. I'm going to operate off two points/assumptions:

You genuinely care about user privacy and anonymity (more so than having to deal with constructive conflict)
You believe Zcash to be the technically superior CC and thus should be used over all other CC

Zcash will most likely get used less (and be more susceptible to timing attacks) if there's no CC section as users will turn to the prism-break website where Zcash isn't featured (but Monero is) or they'll simply use a search engine of choice and potentially determine some other coin (e.g. Dash or whatever the integrated Tor + Bitcoin fork of the day ends up being) is 'good enough'. Therefore removing the CC section would run counter to whoever has the values I've presumed above.

Having made a simple appeal, I'm then also curious as to why there was no constructive criticism/commentary for #270 by @kewde or @privacytoolsIO given:

I'm exploring all viable options to the conflict.

Instead what happened was no constructive conversation or commentary of #270 before the merge. I get that for Zcash proponents being listed third is not ideal (I myself am really not a big fan of Bitcoin being first/listed at all given increasing deanonymity/analysis trends), but it is much better than Zcash not being listed at all as I highlighted above. It being listed third can be mitigated in part in addition to the description text highlighting technical merits by having header sub-text or something similar saying 'Sorted alpha desc' just to make it explicitly clear that Zcash isn't listed last (and Bitcoin first) because of technical merits.

In attempting to avoid conflict regarding the listing order there will now be conflict about why CC isn't listed period (and no guarantee the conversations won't continue as is evident) and there is a chance people will either start deferring to the prism-break website or else use inferior privacy oriented coins which to the best of my knowledge, no one here wants.

I was out for a couple days, but hopefully I can appeal to the people (largely @kewde given they committed and made the issue) who think that the best resolution is to simply remove the CC section and let users fall for scams. I'm going to operate off two points/assumptions: 1. You genuinely care about user privacy and anonymity (more so than having to deal with constructive conflict) 2. You believe Zcash to be the technically superior CC and thus should be used over all other CC Zcash will most likely get used _less_ (and be more susceptible to timing attacks) if there's no CC section as users will turn to the prism-break website where Zcash isn't featured (but Monero is) or they'll simply use a search engine of choice and potentially determine some other coin (e.g. Dash or whatever the integrated Tor + Bitcoin fork of the day ends up being) is 'good enough'. Therefore removing the CC section would run counter to whoever has the values I've presumed above. Having made a simple appeal, I'm then also curious as to why there was no constructive criticism/commentary for #270 by @kewde or @privacytoolsIO given: > I'm exploring all viable options to the conflict. Instead what happened was no constructive conversation or commentary of #270 before the merge. I get that for Zcash proponents being listed third is not ideal (I myself am _really_ not a big fan of Bitcoin being first/listed at all given increasing deanonymity/analysis trends), but it is much better than Zcash not being listed at all as I highlighted above. It being listed third can be mitigated in part in addition to the description text highlighting technical merits by having header sub-text or something similar saying 'Sorted alpha desc' just to make it explicitly clear that Zcash isn't listed last (and Bitcoin first) because of technical merits. In attempting to avoid conflict regarding the listing order there will now be conflict about why CC isn't listed period (and no guarantee the conversations won't continue as is evident) and there is a chance people will either start deferring to the prism-break website or else use inferior privacy oriented coins which to the best of my knowledge, no one here wants.

👍 1

This repo is archived. You cannot comment on pull requests.

No reviewers