Right! Thanks for the explanation. 🙏
because in this case, it relied on the cache, revalidation would expose the bad egg.
Agree, validation could be tricked through a bug, but it could still easily be traced if inputs and outputs don't add up.
A truly hidden inflation bug is only possible if amounts are hidden. would you agree?
(again, not saying it happend or it would happen, just talking about the possibility)
Replies (5)
But what I'm saying is inputs and outputs can appear to add up to validation software if there is a bug like an overflow bug.
There are actually other ways for hidden inflation to happen even with plaintext amounts. I would agree that privacy features increase the surface area for potential hidden inflation bugs and that Monero has a wider surface for potential hidden inflation bugs than Bitcoin.
I think we mostly agree, and thanks again for the insights 🤝
I guess the big main difference is with detectability of hidden inflation. If amounts are transparent, it would eventually be detected. if they are hidden, and the problem is in the proof system, it could stay hidden forever
is that a fair assumption?
I still don't think that's accurate. Bugs in software can take literally any shape. I think it's accurate to say hidden amounts make it more difficult to detect inflation bugs if they exist. That's a fair statement.
Fair! I'm happy to disagree with you on that one point.
I don't think the point you're making is wrong either, it souns solid to me.
Just have a different opinion on what is more/less probable
Here I will say that I can't think of a way for hidden inflation to happen on Bitcoin even theoretically. If you eliminate the linkable transaction graph, but kept plaintext amounts, then I can see how it's possible. So plaintext amounts + linkable transaction graph (everyone can see which inputs are destroyed in every transaction and which outputs are produced) = no theoretical hidden inflation. And that's Bitcoin.
That being said.. I think that can lead to a false sense of security. There are plenty of theoretical devastating inflation bugs or implementation bugs that would destroy Bitcoin (or Monero). Like broken cryptography that could allow anyone to steal people's Bitcoin.
I think it's definitely fair and valid to say Monero has a wider surface for these sorts of bugs (including hidden inflation which I can't see how Bitcoin could have), and therefore assign it a higher probability of occurring than Bitcoin. I agree with that.
