Transparent Crypto Bitcoin 2.0 Technologies vs Anonymous Bitcoin Crypto 2.0 technologies?

Question

I'm still doing more research on Crypto 2.0 or Bitcoin 2.0 technologies and still weighing the pros and cons of each. So far we have the following technologies that are either backed by a company or a few people:

• Ethereum
• Counterparty
• Bitshares
• Ripple
• Coin Prism
• Sidechain

And then we have anonymous Bitcoin 2.0 crypto like NXT that took after the steps of satoshi of staying anonymous.

What I want to find out is how does being transparency play into these systems. I can understand that being transparent gives the ability to hold these companies or people accountable if anything goes wrong. But this also gives these entities the ability to be manipulated by government and laws that govern what they can and cannot do. One case is with counterparty, as they had a gambling tab within their system which they had to limit via Geo IP location due to US laws as they don't want to be labeled as a facilitator of a gambling site.

Can someone provide a list of PROS + CONS on each side of the coin for being a transparent 2.0 technology to being a anonymous 2.0 technology.

Answer 1

When I joined Ethereum in January 2014, one of the things that attracted me to the project was how transparently Vitalik wanted it to be run. Everyone in the team is identified publicly since day one, all the code is opensource wall to wall under MIT license, and how we intend to use the funds is completely transparent. Even our multisig account is public (https://blockchain.info/charts/balance?timespan=&daysAverageString=1&scale=0&address=36PrZ1KHYMpqSyAQXSG8VwbUiq2EogxLo2).

I personally can't imagine doing it any other way. Staying anonymous benefits who exactly? And protects the project creators from what exactly? To say it's to protect oneself from the big bad 'government' sounds far fetched at best, and a terrible excuse to operate with impunity at worst.

The 'crypto space' is currently very similar to the web circa 1993 (see: Pixelon): a miasma of a very few talented and visionary individuals, mixed with snakes, con-men, and sharks with big smiles preying on the excitement this new technology has engendered. It's very unfortunate, and certainly ironic: it is indeed the promise of the blockchain technology for operations to be executed in a 'trustless' manner, meaning without having to trust a central authority to act honestly.

TL;DR: staying anonymous only benefit the platform creators, so proceed with caution.

Answer 2

None of the 2.0 technologies are completely anonymous. At best, they are pseudonymous as Bitcoin. Some of them, like Ripple, have a disincentive to creating new pseudonyms all the time (having to pay fees to activate a new address and set up trust).

The strong part of the 2.0 technologies is the ability to issue arbitrary currencies, which are often backed by other currencies or commodities. As such, the issuer needs to be known so people can send the currency or commodity to them and hold them accountable for the delivery of the underlying value.

There are some functions in the 2.0 systems that can be used without revealing an identity, like decentralized gambling, futures contracts, etc. Those will cause an interesting legal conundrum in the future. Most likely all parties involved will be held accountable for their actions, so if you gamble online illegally, you may be thrown in jail for that.

A useful overview of the various features of Crypto 2.0 systems - tiny.cc/Crypto .

Answer 3

Disclaimer: I work for Coinprism.

Coinprism is based on an open protocol called Open Assets (placed in the public domain). Colorcore is an open source implementation of that protocol.

The Open Assets protocol is finalized, and you can start using it today without fearing any changes to it. It does everything it is supposed to do while keeping it extremely simple: ability to issue and transfer assets. Atomic swaps, dividends, voting, crowdfunding can all be built from that core protocol with no changes whatsoever.

If Coinprism disappears or if the government compels us to make changes to Open Assets, nothing forces you to upgrade to that new version, and you will always be able to use Colorcore along with the existing version of the protocol.

In effect, Open Assets is now like HTTP in the sense that it doesn't really belong to anyone. Because Open Assets doesn't rely on any underlying currency (other than Bitcoin), there is no incentive for you to upgrade to any (potential) new version.