This figure shows a “Zebra node” receiving “viewing keys”.
I am concerned by this architecture, which (I believe) is similar to how Monero operates some of its nodes.
For efficiency Monero delegates view capability to highly resourced nodes, so that chain scan can be carried out on those resourced nodes.
As a hack to allow faster scanning it’s… well it’s a hack.
As a delegation of a significant capability to an untrustable third party, at least in some contexts, I think it’s a serious security issue, though I would defer to someone with more expertise like @emersonian or @daira or @ChristopherA or @paullinator or @idky137 .
That brings me to this snippet of news:
Chainalysis is incentivized to attack Monero in this fashion because of Monero’s poor design decision.
If Chainalysis were to successfully MITM such an architecture, the User’s privacy would be… I think the same as if they were using Bitcoin… which is to say: “Nonexistent, on chain.” Of course, it’s worse than bitcoin in at least one dimension because of the much noted divergence between assumed, and actual, privacy. Do we want to build ourselves into this scenario?
As a somewhat separate concern this design seems intended to support parties that have control of highly resourced nodes. While I have no issue with specialized niches of the population using Zcash for whatever, I believe it’s a misallocation of scarce capitol for the community to design especially for those parties.
That’s not the market Zingo Labs is targeting, we’re interested in supporting people in general, even ones that don’t work for Binance, or Chainalysis.
I think this design fails our Users, except Chainalysis employees . I think this is not too surprising because it is unnecessarily violating a core principle of the CypherPunk Ethos, the Principle of Least Authority: