Exactly. “Tracers in the Dark” (https://a.co/d/aos3Nka) does a good job of telling that story and a couple of others from the early days of blockchain analytics
#2: the author wrote "This attack is not realistic. ... This is why everyone needs to run their own node"
#3: "digital forensic approach can still reveal sensitive information by examining off-chain artifacts such as memory and wallet files"
So...
#1 seems to have been mitigated.
#2 seems to not be an issue if you run your own node.
#3 seems to not be an issue if you don't let others do forensic analysis on your own computer (not the Blockchain).
It's good that people do this research to help make Monero better. I am not criticizing the people that published what OP linked to. But of course OP's post is like saying "What makes you think paint is safe? Here's a post about how paint used to include lead."
The fact that it's delisted from most exchanges because of its privacy features; if it was as traceable as Bitcoin, then the feds would allow it. What I see from these links is that it's not fully "traceable" and more educated guessing via heuristics.
Lightning (A layer-2 network based on Bitcoin) is similarly untraceable as Monero, without being an actual cryptocurrency. Yet the fed doesn't seem to concerned, probably also because few people and institutions understand Lightning, and the fed is not one of them or doesn't want to go against Bitcoin.
Old paper, old link. Most of it is not relevant anymore today. They also do not compare, as Lightning is NOT a cryptocurrency nor does it try to be. It is still Bitcoin.
Please kindly provide evidence for your claims and please be factual to point the current privacy concerns still open today and what has been addressed (if at all).
Lightning is a token representing bitcoin, same as USDT representing USD.
reply