@designheretic

I haven’t seen any such evidence that would be admissible in court, so remain skeptical that it would (probability-based or timing-based unmaskings are by their nature subject to a degree of uncertainty and thus may be inadmissible from an evidentiary standpoint) Regardless—what action could have been taken that didn’t compromise the utility of the protocol? Unless one is opposed to strong privacy existing, out of fear that some bad actors escape scrutiny, anything they might have done would’ve rendered the protocol a purposeless waste of gas I for one favor a system that doesn’t conscript protocol developers into service as police—as the legitimate uses of strong privacy are more beneficial than any negative impacts that may result from protecting bad actors along with everyone else That’s my 2 gwei—I take it you prefer a “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” approach? https://open.substack.com/pub/designheretic/p/securing-the-fourth-reclaiming-the

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction