Shaping Multichain Privacy - article discussions

Dedicated topic to discuss the article Shaping Multichain Privacy


great read! for clarification, when you reference ‘fungible and non-fungible tokens’ are you suggesting

  1. fungible = eth, btc, xmr, zec; non-fungible = NFTs
  2. fungible = xmr, zec; non-fungible = eth, btc
1 Like
  1. fungible = eth, btc, xmr, zec; non-fungible = NFTs

I was watching your pres from AE on sizematters/shaping multichain privacy and it got me wondering…Is there a minimum effective size of shielded set that Namada/users/privacy are shooting for in the early days?

if I’m right we need to incentivize people to pool their assets to Namada to grow the set, and this incentive will cost something to do.

And when you describe current chain analysts tactic to unwind tx data, etc , is there an objective size of the shielded set at which you can say it’s ‘protected’ or ‘encrypted’ just by the amount of work it would take to effectively unwind tx data to attach the threads?

I.e. is there an asset amount (50m, 500m, 1BN, etc) when you could say using current techniques it would take 10 years to unwind or 20…some prohibitive amount of work that would make people feel like their tx data isn’t worth unwinding?

Hope that question makes enough sense to unwind. lol