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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1YJfss-0002ia-UC
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 06 Feb 2015 10:11:34 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.176 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.176; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f176.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f176.google.com ([209.85.223.176])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YJfsr-0007hX-QX
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 06 Feb 2015 10:11:34 +0000
Received: by iecat20 with SMTP id at20so157262iec.3
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 06 Feb 2015 02:11:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.137.8 with SMTP id l8mr1483818iod.9.1423217488424; Fri,
06 Feb 2015 02:11:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.147.196 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 02:11:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20150204142323.DEC4BE2DCDE@quidecco.de>
References: <20150204142323.DEC4BE2DCDE@quidecco.de>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 10:11:28 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJCMqcfj+1dALUQyepo=Y3Fk=QWTp5fnmR53VAkOf=3Bwg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Isidor Zeuner <cryptocurrencies@quidecco.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(laanwj[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1YJfsr-0007hX-QX
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] determining change addresses using the
least significant digits
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 10:11:35 -0000
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Isidor Zeuner
<cryptocurrencies@quidecco.de> wrote:
> A possible approach to handle this issue would be to add a randomized
> offset amount to the payment amount. This offset amount can be small
> in comparison to the payment amount.
>
> Any thoughts?
Adding/subtracting a randomized offset amount is one way, but there
have also been more sophisticated ideas to obfuscate the amount, e.g.
by adding multiple change outputs or even distributing over multiple
transactions (potentially coinjoined for further privacy).
Mike Hearn had some ideas regarding obfuscation of payment amounts,
which still make sense, and he wrote about them here:
https://medium.com/@octskyward/merge-avoidance-7f95a386692f
Wladimir
|
