Blockstream created Ring Ct and it was great, but... why Blockstream didn't tried to implement that in Bitcoin ? Blockstream said:

"This goes a step beyond the usual privacy offered by Bitcoin’s blockchain, which relies purely on pseudonymous (but public) identities. This matters, because insufficient financial privacy can have serious security and privacy implications for both commercial and personal transactions. Without adequate protection, thieves can focus their efforts on high-value targets, competitors can learn business details, and negotiating positions can be undermined."

Wtf ?! Conflict of interest ?

https://image.nostr.build/89ed3331510f71b9bf75590226ef4bc86db962a94a805da784dd94f7fd7dbe09.png

Btw, the Ring Ct in Monero is different but it's based on Gregory Maxwell (Blockstream) work. The post of Adam Back seems arrogant for me and it wasn't necessary at all, Shen Noether who implemented Ring Ct in Monero published an article and a whole document about that, where he said: 

"Recently the technique
of using a commitment scheme to hide the amount of a transaction has
been discussed and implemented by Bitcoin Core Developer Gregory Maxwell."

You can check here:

https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1098 

 so blockstream created it but didn't implement it? the quote you gave doesn't give a reason 

 It wasn't implemented in Bitcoin, it was implemented in Blockstream's L2... why ? 

 ah gotcha, curious i didn't know that. thanks 

 So you're telling me Liquid had the name recognition with Bitcoin and this huge headstart...and Monero *still* outpaced it in every way, like hiding senders/receivers, implementing network level obfuscation, and growing a massive anonymity set vs the graveyard that is Liquids mempool

The market has spoken. No one that wants private transactions uses Liquid. No one uses Liquid for anything, period.

liquid.network