1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BB011AE5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Jan 2019 04:14:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40130.protonmail.ch (mail-40130.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.130])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E92D1FB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Jan 2019 04:14:50 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 04:14:41 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=default; t=1548648887;
bh=OqNWsp/SxiLzPYmm608NmvjprHEkcTWMcJ2FN7rbN5s=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From;
b=IAGnMKdbAp1wR7e8MH4HJFeecBvOvKdKcMtsydCuNhrlvRraDomzpv6ZYq/bRLyQT
p/VUYyPtXJgtndEug72zAVhvB0zOaRusUkwZ5VoBi+zrpgrSVu37NfAVJ9+h+IZyIC
YcNpGl5SZuBGPX+M5M6le69QgwG2DrW/gLkdCp2c=
To: "rhavar@protonmail.com" <rhavar@protonmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <-NShvd5jVPHb7_QmmjQMHX4f-O53noLWK8DKl37mJGcNlIvGoGbBrJVAwly9cHtLrB1tSz8FVL_wSMvaj2uAA760Sgr4Mg6M4VQuKZx0m7w=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <-yZhdFkKfKAEz1_4GKKSpTxjvR8EDSsH_5-TTh_4X5qwa79igXKR14rh6JASrald-F97o1htWY_kcBQ7IVr7ZH9zOQlOEwzhkWDjTq0d7F4=@protonmail.com>
References: <TtjH2zicjKr8PBVCMOvA7ryt2z_XXvtrpC4y1wuWSxexNwMdbPGE7vPmu6UnzmfYqYBMxZ8NNoz4VUnODdIcjR4j-E1sYz_FA6ZZMjKHtuM=@protonmail.com>
<e15c5dd7-6fe1-b253-e129-aeae6493acd1@gmail.com>
<-yZhdFkKfKAEz1_4GKKSpTxjvR8EDSsH_5-TTh_4X5qwa79igXKR14rh6JASrald-F97o1htWY_kcBQ7IVr7ZH9zOQlOEwzhkWDjTq0d7F4=@protonmail.com>
Feedback-ID: el4j0RWPRERue64lIQeq9Y2FP-mdB86tFqjmrJyEPR9VAtMovPEo9tvgA0CrTsSHJeeyPXqnoAu6DN-R04uJUg==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 06:15:19 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] bustapay BIP :: a practical sender/receiver
coinjoin protocol
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 04:14:51 -0000
Good morning Ryan and Adam,
> [UIH2 snipped]
Perhaps I am being naive, but I seem, the B2EP and similar do not need to w=
orry about UIH2.
From the github discussion:
> "UIH2": one input is larger than any output.
.
I.e. there exists an input, for all outputs, input > output
To avoid this, we should ensure that, for all inputs, there exists an outpu=
t, input < output.
From the proposal BIP:
> The receiver then adds one of his own inputs (known as the "contributed i=
nput") and increase the output that pays himself by the contributed input a=
mount.
Suppose the original transaction avoids the UIH2 (i.e. for all inputs, ther=
e exists an output, input < output).
The single added input will also avoid the UIH2, since the contributed outp=
ut value is added to the receiver output, thereby ensuring that contributed=
input < output.
Suppose the original transaction does not avoid the UIH2.
The receiver adding their own contributed input would then have a chance th=
at the addition on the output will now cause the final transaction to avoid=
the UIH2, since the sum of the receiver amount and the contributed input m=
ay now exceed the largest sender input.
But since there are more transactions that avoid the UIH2 than not avoid UI=
H2, the increased probability of now avoiding the UIH2 will lead to a great=
er anonymity set (especially for the sender, whose coin selection algorithm=
might have a consistent bias that makes it create transactions that trigge=
r UIH2).
So it seems to me that the simple solution, i.e. sender uses standard coin =
selection algorithms already in use today, and receiver does not do any UIH=
2 checks at all, would be an improvement in both privacy and implementation=
simplicity.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
