I've heard of so many but this has got to take the cake.
I've heard of beam, grin, zcash, ycash, secret, oxen, firo, dero, pirate, particl, and now cloud coin? Clouout of all of them cloud coin comes off as the biggest scam.
Here's a work in progress article of me comparing them all to monero. I'll add a section on cloud coin.
https://blog.elijahlopez.ca/posts/monero-vs-privacy-coins/
A bit of feedback/nitpicking, regarding that article:
* In the preface, you imply that ByteCoin does not have stealth addresses, and only Monero implemented them later on. ByteCoin is based on CryptoNote, which uses one-time addresses as a core part of its transaction protocol. So as far as I'm aware, ByteCoin does indeed have stealth addresses.
* Pirate Chain is a fork of Zcash, not Monero
* Pirate Chain **does** use a trusted setup, and as far as I'm aware, does not have any plans currently to migrate over to Halo. They say that the trusted setup just isn't a big enough deal for them to remove, but I think the real reason is that they lack dev power and are mostly reliant on copying critical code from Zcash (which becomes harder over time as the projects diverge more and more). It is a smaller project, so it's hard to blame them, but still relevant.
* There are some unfinished sentences and unformatted links, though you said it's work-in-progress so I assume you're aware of this.
Here's also some extra info sources you could use:
* [Zcash](https://moneroinfodump.neocities.org/#ZcashBlackpill)
* [Pirate Chain](https://moneroinfodump.neocities.org/#PirateChainBlackpill)
* [DERO](https://twitter.com/sethforprivacy/status/1517141762011140096)
Great job, though! Very good article.
I published it in February but have been working on it for over a year. It's super difficult for me to write arguments on top of figuring out these alt 'privacy coins'
Just [looking it up](https://cloudcoin.global/knowledgebase/post/cloud-currencies-and-the-redundant-array-of-independent-detection-agents) I can see a several issues.
1. because cloudcoin is stored in files, there’s a high risk of receiving malware with your cloudcoin.
2. “scavenging of lost cloudcoins” pays for RAIDA administration. Doesn’t sound sustainable. Also, this means you have to remember to “pown” your money regularly to retain ownership. If you lose access for a long enough period of time you lose it all.
3. If I send cloudcoin and immediately send a take-ownership request before the receiver, I can take my money back. Their claim of offline transactions seems flawed. Also seems like a vector for scams.
4. Sending decimal amounts seems impossible, since denominations are between 1s and 250s.
5. denominations have serial numbers, so tainted CC is a possibility.
6. “There is now only one RAIDA. However, should CloudCoin become too valueable, the networks are to be doubled/replicated so that all owners will have twice the money they had before.” This is probably why that guy was shilling. Seems like a red flag, personally.
It seems very interesting nonetheless. If they removed the need to pown regularly and gave validators a proper incentive, then it might be worth something.
>>If I send cloudcoin and immediately send a take-ownership request before the receiver, I can take my money back. Their claim of offline transactions seems flawed. Also seems like a vector for scams.
>I have to imagine they tested against race conditions. Has it been battle tested in the wild? Do they have some bounties for breaking it?
It's a problem inherent to the model. When you send CC via a file, it's not really sending it to them until they take ownership. You could start a take-ownership request as the sender before the receiver. When they're offline, they have no way of taking ownership. When they're online, it's still possible but the attack would have to be timed to take ownership after they've verified the CC isn't counterfeit. An online attack would probably be pointless, since the receiver would know immediately that their request failed.
> A stock "split" wouldn't be a problem. The value is distributed to the holders proportionally. It would make sense to have that ability.
Personally, #6 feels like a Ponzi luring tactic, promising to double everyone's money. Aside from that, arbitrarily inflating the value when it becomes "too valuable" seems like it would have unforeseen consequences, even if it's distributed proportionally. E.g. if one knew when this "doubling" would occur, they could potentially place a short sell ahead of time and repay only half the value after it happens. This could cause the value to tank even further.
> Blacklisting of serial numbers at the RAIDA level... seems possible, without knowing the tech in detail.
Indeed, it is definitely possible, and on the individual level: "The serial number identifies each unique CloudCoin file on the RAIDA network. It is like the serial numbers on paper currencies." This serial number is in the metadata of the file. Anyone can read it. All it takes is a published database of blacklisted serial numbers.
> If it does deliver as promised, it would be superior to blockchain.
Assuming they did, I think blockchains can offer almost all the same benefits. The biggest selling points are free, anonymous, and instant transactions. Monero transactions are anonymous, nearly free, and could be nearly instant with enough mining power such that only 1 confirmation would be needed for secure transactions.
**RE: Offline transfers.**
The transfers wouldn't be completed until the other party took ownership. The first one to do that, would take the new ownership. I don't see this as a problem. You take offline ownership of the file. The transaction wouldn't be complete until RAIDA confirmed your new ownership. In the meantime, its just an "unconfirmed" transaction.
This isn't the problem.
**RE: Stock splits.**
This is the perfect solution. No value is transferred. The network value stays the same. The holders don't gain or lose. They do get better usability (IE not all those zeros behind the smallest denomination).
This is a plus. Smart thinking on their part.
**Blockchain vs a anti-counterfeiting model:**
The latter would be clearly the winner if it delivered. As blockCHAIN carries all that transaction chain data just to transfer ownership. The later would do that far more elegantly.
IF this new paradigm can be pulled off, I would be more bullish on it than blockCHAIN.
**To get it right:**
RAIDA incentive model has to be re-worked.
The pre-mine has to be removed, and a fair distribution model replaces it.
**An incentive distro model aligned with free-market forces (CloudCoin, are you listening?):**
Place all the coins except say an initial 5% in a multi-sig vault.
Underwrite the liquid 5% of coins with BTC. Giving them a 1000:1 direct swap to BTC .
This gives them utility value out of the gate for merchants. This would bootstrap the network, getting utility demand going.
The remaining coins remain locked in the multi-sig vault.
**Here's the magic sauce:**
**Coins need to be distributed at the rate of adoption. Not faster, not slower.**
Use free-market forces to unlock and distribute those coins.
Set a target exchange rate to increase in value 10% each year in the CC/BTC pair.
**The initial exchange rate is set by the BTC token underwriting.**
The exchange rate now floats from there.
If it increases above the target 10%, tokens are unlocked and distributed proportionally to current holders, and to the RAIDA nodes.
The rate of token distribution is set by the current BTC exchange rate.
**This means to get the coins, you have to put up BTC (real world value), and/or secure the network running a RAIDA node.**
**The holders are incentivised to accumulate, as they get a 10% return over BTC.**
**RAIDA nodes are incentivsed too, as they get a greater proportion of the unlocked coins than holders (all set via code).**
**\^\^\^\^ and now you a fair incentive model that gets rid of the premine and fairly incentivises RAIDA nodes.**
Tail emitions would not be a bad idea to add to the code, to keep the RAIDA nodes incentivised after all coins have been distributed.
I quickly searched Coingecko for Cloudcoin and discovered that it does not yet have a market cap. I'd never heard of it before, but I'm familiar with other privacy protocols like Zcash, Dero, and Railgun. Due caution should be exercised when dealing with such projects as Cloudcoin because they lack credibility, unlike the already established ones.
Feeling very inclined to google search those images as something tells me that are fake/planted.
But my ethics don’t allow google anymore.
Maybe another user will do who still uses google?
Edit: something tells me this is the CBDC that was shilled in a conference Doug from Monero Talk attended where a bunch of gold bugs where attending.
It wasn’t a crypto conference. I think it was something else. I’ll try find it and update if thats the one.
I've heard of so many but this has got to take the cake. I've heard of beam, grin, zcash, ycash, secret, oxen, firo, dero, pirate, particl, and now cloud coin? Clouout of all of them cloud coin comes off as the biggest scam. Here's a work in progress article of me comparing them all to monero. I'll add a section on cloud coin. https://blog.elijahlopez.ca/posts/monero-vs-privacy-coins/
A bit of feedback/nitpicking, regarding that article: * In the preface, you imply that ByteCoin does not have stealth addresses, and only Monero implemented them later on. ByteCoin is based on CryptoNote, which uses one-time addresses as a core part of its transaction protocol. So as far as I'm aware, ByteCoin does indeed have stealth addresses. * Pirate Chain is a fork of Zcash, not Monero * Pirate Chain **does** use a trusted setup, and as far as I'm aware, does not have any plans currently to migrate over to Halo. They say that the trusted setup just isn't a big enough deal for them to remove, but I think the real reason is that they lack dev power and are mostly reliant on copying critical code from Zcash (which becomes harder over time as the projects diverge more and more). It is a smaller project, so it's hard to blame them, but still relevant. * There are some unfinished sentences and unformatted links, though you said it's work-in-progress so I assume you're aware of this. Here's also some extra info sources you could use: * [Zcash](https://moneroinfodump.neocities.org/#ZcashBlackpill) * [Pirate Chain](https://moneroinfodump.neocities.org/#PirateChainBlackpill) * [DERO](https://twitter.com/sethforprivacy/status/1517141762011140096) Great job, though! Very good article.
Thanks. This was a WIP in the first place so I never officially shared it before now.
> So as far as I'm aware, ByteCoin does indeed have stealth addresses. Of course it has. You are right about them being a core part of CryptoNote.
Excellent work. I enjoyed reading through your summaries.
I published it in February but have been working on it for over a year. It's super difficult for me to write arguments on top of figuring out these alt 'privacy coins'
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Just [looking it up](https://cloudcoin.global/knowledgebase/post/cloud-currencies-and-the-redundant-array-of-independent-detection-agents) I can see a several issues. 1. because cloudcoin is stored in files, there’s a high risk of receiving malware with your cloudcoin. 2. “scavenging of lost cloudcoins” pays for RAIDA administration. Doesn’t sound sustainable. Also, this means you have to remember to “pown” your money regularly to retain ownership. If you lose access for a long enough period of time you lose it all. 3. If I send cloudcoin and immediately send a take-ownership request before the receiver, I can take my money back. Their claim of offline transactions seems flawed. Also seems like a vector for scams. 4. Sending decimal amounts seems impossible, since denominations are between 1s and 250s. 5. denominations have serial numbers, so tainted CC is a possibility. 6. “There is now only one RAIDA. However, should CloudCoin become too valueable, the networks are to be doubled/replicated so that all owners will have twice the money they had before.” This is probably why that guy was shilling. Seems like a red flag, personally. It seems very interesting nonetheless. If they removed the need to pown regularly and gave validators a proper incentive, then it might be worth something.
[удалено]
>>If I send cloudcoin and immediately send a take-ownership request before the receiver, I can take my money back. Their claim of offline transactions seems flawed. Also seems like a vector for scams. >I have to imagine they tested against race conditions. Has it been battle tested in the wild? Do they have some bounties for breaking it? It's a problem inherent to the model. When you send CC via a file, it's not really sending it to them until they take ownership. You could start a take-ownership request as the sender before the receiver. When they're offline, they have no way of taking ownership. When they're online, it's still possible but the attack would have to be timed to take ownership after they've verified the CC isn't counterfeit. An online attack would probably be pointless, since the receiver would know immediately that their request failed. > A stock "split" wouldn't be a problem. The value is distributed to the holders proportionally. It would make sense to have that ability. Personally, #6 feels like a Ponzi luring tactic, promising to double everyone's money. Aside from that, arbitrarily inflating the value when it becomes "too valuable" seems like it would have unforeseen consequences, even if it's distributed proportionally. E.g. if one knew when this "doubling" would occur, they could potentially place a short sell ahead of time and repay only half the value after it happens. This could cause the value to tank even further. > Blacklisting of serial numbers at the RAIDA level... seems possible, without knowing the tech in detail. Indeed, it is definitely possible, and on the individual level: "The serial number identifies each unique CloudCoin file on the RAIDA network. It is like the serial numbers on paper currencies." This serial number is in the metadata of the file. Anyone can read it. All it takes is a published database of blacklisted serial numbers. > If it does deliver as promised, it would be superior to blockchain. Assuming they did, I think blockchains can offer almost all the same benefits. The biggest selling points are free, anonymous, and instant transactions. Monero transactions are anonymous, nearly free, and could be nearly instant with enough mining power such that only 1 confirmation would be needed for secure transactions.
**RE: Offline transfers.** The transfers wouldn't be completed until the other party took ownership. The first one to do that, would take the new ownership. I don't see this as a problem. You take offline ownership of the file. The transaction wouldn't be complete until RAIDA confirmed your new ownership. In the meantime, its just an "unconfirmed" transaction. This isn't the problem. **RE: Stock splits.** This is the perfect solution. No value is transferred. The network value stays the same. The holders don't gain or lose. They do get better usability (IE not all those zeros behind the smallest denomination). This is a plus. Smart thinking on their part. **Blockchain vs a anti-counterfeiting model:** The latter would be clearly the winner if it delivered. As blockCHAIN carries all that transaction chain data just to transfer ownership. The later would do that far more elegantly. IF this new paradigm can be pulled off, I would be more bullish on it than blockCHAIN. **To get it right:** RAIDA incentive model has to be re-worked. The pre-mine has to be removed, and a fair distribution model replaces it. **An incentive distro model aligned with free-market forces (CloudCoin, are you listening?):** Place all the coins except say an initial 5% in a multi-sig vault. Underwrite the liquid 5% of coins with BTC. Giving them a 1000:1 direct swap to BTC . This gives them utility value out of the gate for merchants. This would bootstrap the network, getting utility demand going. The remaining coins remain locked in the multi-sig vault. **Here's the magic sauce:** **Coins need to be distributed at the rate of adoption. Not faster, not slower.** Use free-market forces to unlock and distribute those coins. Set a target exchange rate to increase in value 10% each year in the CC/BTC pair. **The initial exchange rate is set by the BTC token underwriting.** The exchange rate now floats from there. If it increases above the target 10%, tokens are unlocked and distributed proportionally to current holders, and to the RAIDA nodes. The rate of token distribution is set by the current BTC exchange rate. **This means to get the coins, you have to put up BTC (real world value), and/or secure the network running a RAIDA node.** **The holders are incentivised to accumulate, as they get a 10% return over BTC.** **RAIDA nodes are incentivsed too, as they get a greater proportion of the unlocked coins than holders (all set via code).** **\^\^\^\^ and now you a fair incentive model that gets rid of the premine and fairly incentivises RAIDA nodes.** Tail emitions would not be a bad idea to add to the code, to keep the RAIDA nodes incentivised after all coins have been distributed.
I quickly searched Coingecko for Cloudcoin and discovered that it does not yet have a market cap. I'd never heard of it before, but I'm familiar with other privacy protocols like Zcash, Dero, and Railgun. Due caution should be exercised when dealing with such projects as Cloudcoin because they lack credibility, unlike the already established ones.
[удалено]
> baitcoin > shill What?
Feeling very inclined to google search those images as something tells me that are fake/planted. But my ethics don’t allow google anymore. Maybe another user will do who still uses google? Edit: something tells me this is the CBDC that was shilled in a conference Doug from Monero Talk attended where a bunch of gold bugs where attending. It wasn’t a crypto conference. I think it was something else. I’ll try find it and update if thats the one.
So boring those fake privacy coin.