“Bitcoin is not a privacy currency,” says crypto evangelist Andreas Antonopoulos

[ad_2][ad_1]

Andreas Antonopoulos discussed how he wished to see Bitcoin have more “privacy features” in a recent live streaming question and answer session posted on Youtube on July 7th. Antonopoulos discussed the privacy-focused monero coin and concepts such as stealth addresses and ring signatures.

From time to time, well-known cryptocurrency expert and evangelist, Andreas M. Antonopoulos, posts a short clip of him answering a question from one of his followers via live streaming. On 7 July Antonopoulos discussed the Bitcoin (BTC) network and answered the question whether “[BTC would] implement monero-like privacy features? “

Monero (XMR) is an open source cryptocurrency created in April 2014 that uses a different proof-of-work (PoW) algorithm. XMR is based on the Cryptonight PoW hash algorithm originally derived from the Cryptonote protocol established in bytecoin. Essentially the project was a forked codebase of bytecoin and originally called “bitmonero”. What makes it difficult to track currency transactions is the obfuscated public ledger and the ring signatures used. Monero also takes advantage of bullets and invisible addresses (one-off).

After Antonopoulos read the question, the entrepreneur said he obviously “wanted” to see the BTC network add privacy features. Antonopoulos also named a number of concepts that could help strengthen BTC’s privacy.

“I think what we will see soon are Schnorr, Taproot and Tapscript, which open the door to a lot of privacy improvements,” said Antonopoulos. “But they still don’t have zero-knowledge proofs or the types of ring signatures and hidden addresses that run in Monero. Bitcoin is not a privacy currency “.

Bitcoin Core developers have yet to add any of the aforementioned privacy enhancement concepts to the backbone until now. The developers, however, got started lay the foundations for concepts like Taproot and Schnorr Signatures. Interestingly, the team working on the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) protocol has already implemented the foundations of Schnorr in two updates.

On Twitter, one person responded to Antonopoulos’ Q&A video tweet and mentioned a coin called a “particl”.

“Particl is the Bitcoin fork that implemented Ring CT, which [also] it was audited, ”the person told Antonopoulos. “If Bitcoin wants Ring CT, it can implement it any day with the help of the Particl altcoin team,” he added. Antonopoulos replied to the person on Twitter and tweeted:

Do you really think that the reason Bitcoin has not implemented these changes is a lack of technical knowledge and the need for assistance from the Bitcoin developers? It is not. It’s about politics and conservative engine management running a very large economy.

At the time of publication, it is unclear when BTC developers will implement things like Schnorr and Taproot. According to Andrew Poelstra, a Blockstream researcher said that Taproot is not quite perfect and “the transaction amounts and the transaction chart are still exposed, much more difficult problems to address.”

The tweet from the Bitcoin Core developer Pieter Wuille, regarding the new privacy features it was released on January 23, but software developer Luke-jr added some commitments two days ago, according to Github.

What do you think of Andreas Antonopoulos’ opinion on BTC and XMR? Let us know what you think in the comments section below.

Tag in this story

Andreas Antonopolous, Andrew Poelstra, Anonymity, BCH, Bitcoin (BTC), bitcoin cash, BTC, bulletproofs, bytecoin codebase, CryptoNote, Monero, Particl, Pieter Wuille, Privacy, privacy coin, Ring CT, Schnorr, Stealth Addressess, Taproot, xmr

Image credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, nor a recommendation or endorsement of products, services or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or allegedly caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.

[ad_2]Source link