1. Double Spend Proofs
Improves: Convenience, security, and transaction speed
BCH has “instant” 0-conf transactions. I think XMR might be able to achieve something similar (although maybe not as fast because of Dandelion++) since both don’t have RBF. This would make 0-conf transactions safer for smaller amounts and the vast majority of use cases.
- https://bitcoincashpodcast.com/faqs/Tech/what-is-0-conf
- https://bitcoincashpodcast.com/faqs/Tech/what-is-0-conf#double-spend-proofs-dsps
2. Decentralized Governance Network Upgrade Consensus
Improves: Decentralization Wider reaching and more explicit consensus from Monero network for upgrades
So far, Monero’s governance has worked out for it and there has been little to no contention with it’s direction within the community. But XMRs governance is not as ideally decentralized as it should be. Again, I’m taking inspiration from another aspect of BCH that I think it does well. Their “CHIP” process, or a variation, is something XMR community should think about and consider adopting to make Monero more robust to capture.
- https://bitcoincashpodcast.com/faqs/Decentralisation/how-does-BCH-governance-work
- https://bch.info/en/chips
- https://gitlab.com/im_uname/cash-improvement-proposals/-/blob/master/CHIPs.md
- Example: https://github.com/cashtokens/cashtokens/blob/master/stakeholders.md
3. Client Side Validation
Improves: Privacy and scalability
This one was inspired by a BTC project called RGB.
“RGB can scale in terms of transaction throughput, data size and network size. It doesn’t keep any data on-chain (in any blockchain)…”
“No chain analysis is possible due to the absence of a transaction graph in blockchain. RGB uses zero-knowledge to protect the history of a fungible state. With RGB, the user is always in-charge of when, and what parts of the history and state to disclose, if needed.”
-
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3_lNNopDJ0 (skip to 38:10)
4. Succinct STARK proofs for Monero blockchain
Improves: Greatly reduce space and time required to sync a node
Another couple BTC projects that Monero might be able to take advantage of.
“Currently transactions specify inputs and outputs, and verifying an input requires you to know the whole state of the system. With Utreexo, the holder of funds maintains a proof that the funds exist, and provides that proof at spending time to the other nodes. These proofs are compact (under 1KB) but do represent the main downside in the utreexo model they present an additional data transmission overhead which allows much smaller state.”
5. Opportunistic Encryption
Possible improvement: Privacy and anonymity for Monero node communication
I’m actually unsure if this would just be completely redundant for Monero nodes. But thought to mention it just in case. Maybe it can help hide any residual metadata between peers, or offer an addtional layer, that Monero might not already cover.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0324.mediawiki
*I want to know your opinions on these ideas. Let me know in the comments if you have any ideas from other projects that might benefit Monero too.*
@WishfulAlbatross
>2. Decentralized Governance
CHIP process is quite complicated and seems to be focused exclusively on network upgrades. Also, calling it decentralized is misleading because some group of people has to oversee the process, maintain the repository etc etc
But I agree that setting up something like RFC for Monero ecosystem is a good idea, because it will improve coordination and transparency. Someone even tried to start it back in 2014 (and failed): https://github.com/monero-developers/mips
Such project would require some support from the community (to avoid the fate of the previous MIPS initiative), but I think it’s doable. In Fediverse we have FEP process, which is very lightweight and can be used as a template.
Old comment, but i’ll reply anyway.
Regarding decentralized governance: There is no official repository as there are multiple differing node implementations. You will find that neither one holds a significant majority consensus. Especially when compared to BTC or specifically, Bitcoin Core. Each node author is significant in regards to CHIP.
As a matter of fact, pretty recently, an outdated node implementation was able to garner development funds via Flipstarter in order to keep it in consensus. Nodes are actively funded by the community in order to keep decentralization.
BCH at this point in time very well does fit the definition of Decentralized. It is not misleading.
Also, +1 for 0-conf on XMR.
@Eggroley We were talking about CHIPs at https://bch.info/en/chips. There’s a website and a github repo, likely controlled by the same person. Looks very official to me, and very centralized. More generally, there’s no such thing as “decentralized governance”. You can have anarchy / free market, or you can have a centralized decision making process, but not both.
That’s clearly not official. That is literally just some random guy who made an informational site. There are plenty of them. Please just do the tiniest bit of extra research before you make any further claims.
Decision making is not made by one person and it often takes years before a CHIP is considered. All Stakeholders are involved in the CHIP process including (like I stated) node authors, in which there is no majority node which basically controls the network.
Decision making being done by multiple unaffiliated people from multiple different teams on different node software and, CHIPs taking multiple years and iterations to achieve consensus seems to fit the definition of decentralized governance pretty well.
The only “centralized” aspect of the CHIP process is the fact that discussion mostly takes place on a centralized platform (which can be manipulated to skew Stakeholder opinions).
https://bitcoincashresearch.org/
There is no official site, no official dev team, and no official software. This is all common knowledge in BCH. I advise you educate yourself and DYOR before you make any further claims.
@Eggroley I have no time for shitcoin research. If there are other CHIP sites, it shouldn’t be difficult for you to present them.
>Decision making being done by multiple unaffiliated people from multiple different teams on different node software and, CHIPs taking multiple years and iterations to achieve consensus seems to fit the definition of decentralized governance pretty well.
If 10 guys talking on a forum and deciding what’s best for all users of a network counts as “decentralized”, then yeah, maybe it is.
The fact that you decided not to educate yourself on a topic you’re literally critiquing speaks for itself.
I once again ask that you educate yourself before making any further claims; otherwise you look like a fool.
I also see you have preconceived notions with your assertion of BCH somehow being a “shitcoin”.
For other CHIP sites, look at the forum I linked previously. It is literally THE site where CHIPs are discussed.
Again, bch.info is a random informational site. As is bchfaq.com, as is bitcoincash.org, as is thebitcoincashpodcast.com.
bch.info simply aggregates links to CHIPs and other specifications within BCH (commonly posted on github). This is similar to sites like getmonero.org or monerodocs.org. Would you claim XMR is centralized because of that?
Obviously, no. To quote getmonero.org “the Core Team manages and maintains infrastructure where centralization cannot be avoided”. That is in the same essence of BCH minus the invite-only Core team as it is more of an individual/collaborative effort sometimes funded by the community via flipstarter.
Does a smaller group of people contributing to a project make it centralized? (The answer is no, especially when that community is growing day by day)
No community is large at the beginning.
What is your definition of decentralized if not the literal definition of decentralized?