[Cryptography] [ANNOUNCE] HashCash Digital Cash

[Jameson Lopp]

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Ashish Gulhati <
crypto at ashish.neomailbox.com> wrote:

>
> > On Jun 21, 2017, at 6:24 AM, Jameson Lopp <jameson.lopp at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Interesting idea; you already seem to be aware of its weaknesses. Any
> thoughts as to why someone would prefer to use HashCash over a trustless
> solution such as TumbleBit?
>
> I don’t think there are any major weaknesses. I don’t agree that trusting
> a vault
> is bad. More details on this are in the FAQ.
>
> TumbleBit is only a mixer, and takes time to anonymize your bitcoin.
> Worse, it’s
> not really anonymizing it, it’s just mixing it with that of others who are
> also jumping
> through extra hoops just to anonymize their bitcoin (i.e. likely involved
> with something
> that is “frowned upon”) - so by mixing with TumbleBit you probably just
> increase
> your chances of receiving funds that have a tainted history. Plus you
> paint a
> target on your back simply by using something whose sole purpose is to
> obfuscate
> your financial activity.
>
> Tumblebit isn't /just/ a mixer - it's also a payment channel based hub for
sending off-chain transactions. Including microtransactions. When using a
mixer it is better to use one with a large user base to increase your
anonymity set. One added bonus is that unlike HashCash there is no
counterparty risk because the mixer itself does not take custody of your
funds.


> TumbleBit does nothing to address other shortcomings of Bitcoin, such as
> slow
> transactions, high fees, or the need for every transaction to be logged
> forever.
>
> As a payment channel based system it does all of those things. Main
limitation is that at the moment the channels are only unidirectional.


> HashCash is a full cash system. The current implementation uses Bitcoin
> for the
> value base but that’s just because that’s a convenient way to leverage
> existing
> networks at this point. HashCash isn’t tied to Bitcoin in any fundamental
> way and
> could be overlaid on any value base. Eventually I expect to see HashCash
> vaults
> based on precious metals, which is really the only way to have sound
> digital cash.
>
> HashCash is useful for tons of situations where Bitcoin is not: Buying
> coffee,
> micropayments, non-geek users, users without Internet access…
>
>
Assuming that you can convince your counterparty to trust whatever vault
you're using, right? Seems like a bit of a bootstrapping problem in order
to gain much network effect. In order to maximize utility, wouldn't
HashCash likely consolidate into a smaller number of highly trafficked
vaults?


> TumbleBit has no use-cases other than obfuscating funds, which makes it a
> sitting duck for regulatory takedown. HashCash has many use-cases that it
> could become indispensable for (e.g. micropayments) which should (once
> these
> use-cases are well integrated into the ’net’s workings) make it more
> difficult
> to take down HashCash vaults.
>
>
Why would TumbleBit nodes be any easier or harder to takedown than HashCash
vaults? Either can presumably be operated anonymously.


> Also, IMO, despite the current tulip mania, Bitcoin will not be around
> very long.
> Bitcoin is really just valueless Hashcash hashes with artificial scarcity
> bolted on
> top, and tons of hype. Eventually the realization will dawn that Bitcoin’s
> 21 million
> limit isn’t really any limit when you have 10,000 Bitcoin clones. The fact
> that Bitcoin
> has lost significant market share in the last few months is an indication
> that this
> process is already underway.
>
> Some people see Bitcoin "losing market share" while others see a vibrant
cryptoeconomy blooming. :-)


> At the moment Bitcoin works because that realization is still a long way
> from
> hitting the mainstream, because its main competitor is fiat which is just
> a total
> disaster, and because in a world of negative interest rates people will
> flock to anything
> that appears to offer actual returns, even a bubble.
>
> HashCash based on a real value backing such as precious metals will still
> be
> useful long after that bubble has burst.
>
> Hm, an interesting thought. Though the nice thing about a Bitcoin-backed
vault is that it could easily publish cryptographic proof of reserves,
while a precious metals vault would have to publish audits by some other
trusted entity.


> Cheers
>
> #!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20170621/091e2803/attachment.html>