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
|
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 400A92371
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 30 Jan 2019 08:34:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40135.protonmail.ch (mail-40135.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.135])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 980B75D4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 30 Jan 2019 08:34:54 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 08:34:46 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=default; t=1548837292;
bh=H+16a8rbk8ix4xEzpI2ARRW1b/0lWni4oVEI3zqMGac=;
h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Feedback-ID:
From;
b=Ak2n2Rmrl29U9Hnwt+3S9CogwqOnQR91uNfJsVGeVW5+5VNWsrpDIYsgmKCqqI3EI
PpahLZmHb0IaT10JpuNAUQCB6Qu4TzaFyuTWhhj9tTxxHrcfbPKsXOcXitXWir1Wow
RdjYVKpuR5YBpbxKFFlSt7jUZ1lMe+LqKVvpH9ZU=
To: Adam Gibson <ekaggata@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <q_EImVoLLoTdTZI0kPb4olI3FFjIMx9Uj0O8acFefNbsMtU7K25wWz69Alm-jbwZ8SEV1U3Y6Re3705Xi2zQb5129MbtjEVE8dT_JtSSfmA=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <226c43d8-1fad-9d90-ba47-9230118e447d@gmail.com>
References: <TtjH2zicjKr8PBVCMOvA7ryt2z_XXvtrpC4y1wuWSxexNwMdbPGE7vPmu6UnzmfYqYBMxZ8NNoz4VUnODdIcjR4j-E1sYz_FA6ZZMjKHtuM=@protonmail.com>
<e15c5dd7-6fe1-b253-e129-aeae6493acd1@gmail.com>
<-yZhdFkKfKAEz1_4GKKSpTxjvR8EDSsH_5-TTh_4X5qwa79igXKR14rh6JASrald-F97o1htWY_kcBQ7IVr7ZH9zOQlOEwzhkWDjTq0d7F4=@protonmail.com>
<-NShvd5jVPHb7_QmmjQMHX4f-O53noLWK8DKl37mJGcNlIvGoGbBrJVAwly9cHtLrB1tSz8FVL_wSMvaj2uAA760Sgr4Mg6M4VQuKZx0m7w=@protonmail.com>
<226c43d8-1fad-9d90-ba47-9230118e447d@gmail.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: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 08:57:48 +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: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 08:34:55 -0000
Good morning Adam,
> And I'm reminded that a related point is made by belcher in the gist
> comment thread iirc (after we discussed it on IRC): over time a
> "PayJoin-only" merchant doing the simplest thing - using a single utxo
> over and over again, will concentrate more and more funds into it, and
> inevitably violating UIH2 in an increasingly dramatic fashion
> (contributing a 100BTC utxo to a 0.1BTC payment etc.). Suggesting it's
> better if there's a mix of payjoin/non-payjoin.
To be pedantic: as I understand bustapay, it would still not violate UIH2 (=
unless I misunderstand UIH2).
Suppose the original transaction is: (0.05 payer, 0.07 payer) -> (0.1 payee=
, 0.02 payer)
Then bustapay with such a PayJoin-only merchant with 100BTC UTXO would give=
: (100 payee, 0.05 payer, 0.07 payer) -> (100.1 payee, 0.02 payer).
As I understand it, this technically does not violate UIH2.
It would still conceivably be interpreted as a payment of 100.1 BTC, from a=
payer who happens to have massively lopsided UTXOs being owned, but still =
does not violate UIH2.
However, if that 100.1 UTXO is subsequently used to pay a 100.3 payment, th=
en that is used to pay a 100.7 payment, that strongly suggests such a naive=
PayJoin-only merchant.
Perhaps a simple heuristic against this would be:
1. For every UTXO you own, flip a coin.
If all of them come up heads, do not payjoin; just broadcast the origin=
al transaction.
2. Else, randomly select a UTXO (value not care?) and payjoin with that UT=
XO.
However, I have no proper analysis of the blockchain, so --
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
