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
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22034267
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 1 May 2016 16:21:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-lf0-f51.google.com (mail-lf0-f51.google.com
[209.85.215.51])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 742F3A6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 1 May 2016 16:21:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-lf0-f51.google.com with SMTP id m64so12504085lfd.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 01 May 2016 09:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:date:message-id:subject:from:to;
bh=6oTgxmmo2MVCRZxfhPYy2ca66r5PAVCx5fUVsrKbalM=;
b=EACHSbMjYDRpiHglHGRWb6U5Vq9+8ANYXYxii8dUpfr6m8TMsnYaBkZjla2viBP3xl
WZG1h9A7zhXYL+NlmnGR/+nHIy9bVAIjfZD8GAzCTKTdYCHTsy7nfMGZqD1D1vjmL7s7
q/YBc8XC8xEtrGNpEhaDFlNrJgz7NQeA+Y1NqbMqEsM5oKKrAaU2MRLr1YTmWU7Um97b
KJtd9VJzvWy5S9BrMNCVuaHDVmDzvUiD9fAK70U56ChzPTn1N7ff5YWWSbGj+5947Yvp
SkbfBJLKsHHoDQF67HeT0bdxhPAdFVPTQUq+YPrxZeqBtz0qJ6qo/6kAc6MTQFL1ou64
bC3g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:date:message-id:subject:from
:to; bh=6oTgxmmo2MVCRZxfhPYy2ca66r5PAVCx5fUVsrKbalM=;
b=i8vMx6HHSpAAKpeJOWS0dlC2xEUhT+/XiTSqFr5atTJ4NsZPA95yJUpl7WJOTKKOfe
bP33KRkwAKt3QWos/LM+D0glHGkoBUpbPCE8qKN4UgmeRKLS7zFGMbpNVMZEiQ9NEByc
lDItrbD3NT5/gkFIB8O93AfNjvslJtciD92QnL4k2LiHvPd5zV2sPnNDE2Z4VhiWx74P
Rc5dEvA8yQsPjon/eaJ1fr2nVmLCer5QiOCydJt+chK2JUUv7WS2XFZuL7izq7y6iZTh
Ne36vmINwy3n6GuAkcTeunbJv44cBN9Wd3JGhp6bN0YnZFLQh1dWavZASJcKk93Ktw35
w3ig==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXxdKy5lpDOvGVRIixIF3maZuvAv5QHn9D5e7uy/VSilMmo3Np+EOGGD++GhBMqNA9aDqUpdFkWXsbABQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.25.125.212 with SMTP id y203mr11877625lfc.91.1462119700965;
Sun, 01 May 2016 09:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.212.37 with HTTP; Sun, 1 May 2016 09:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 16:21:40 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7JRA4NaGNftlFT2buHlIpCGFWV0
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgT7KZ0qDWo1__sKoPUdzr9mdjNanZKTPtR05OkrxigULA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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: Sun, 01 May 2016 16:27:38 +0000
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] segwit subsidy and multi-sender (coinjoin)
transactions
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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: Sun, 01 May 2016 16:21:43 -0000
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Kristov Atlas via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Has anyone thought about the effects of the 75% Segregated Witness subsidy
> on CoinJoin transactions and CoinJoin-like transactions?
Yes.
> My expectation from the above is that this will serve as a financial
> disincentive against CoinJoin transactions.
This does not appear to be the case.
Coinjoin doesn't necessitate any particular behavior that is relevant
here -- normal transactions spend a coin and create a payment of an
externally specified amount and change; CoinJoins are not special
in this regard.
Users may sometimes split up their outputs in an effort to improve
privacy, which would have the "more outputs" effect you're describing,
but more outputs in and of itself would not increase costs under segwit:
The total cost to a user for creating an output paying themselves is both
the cost of the creation and the cost of eventually spending it.
Segwit's cost calculation improvements shifts some relative cost from
spending to creation, but in these cases same user is paying both.
-- unless you want to assume the user is going to create it and never
spend it. In which case, ... they have other issues than transaction
fees. And in that case these outputs are creating a perpetual cost on
the system, it's prudent that the user creating the additional load
take on that cost.
> A sample of the 16 transaction id's posted in the JoinMarket thread on
> BitcoinTalk shows an average ratio of 1.38 or outputs to inputs
[...]
> As we know, a "traditional" CoinJoin transaction creates roughly 2x UTXOs
> for everyone 1 it consumes
It's odd to state something like that as fact immediately after a providing
figure that disproves it...
Although for self-sends the output to input ratio doesn't matter for total
costs (as I described above), you're missing the important bit of context:
where are other transactions. In block 409711 (current height of my
txindex node on my laptop), I see an average of 1.4647 outputs per input.
This figure is all over the map in different blocks, however.
> Please refrain from bringing up Schnorr signatures in your reply, since
> they are not on any immediate roadmap.
Schnorr signatures for Bitcoin have been in the works for years, and are
one of the first proposed uses of the segwit versioning.
[Comments like this last one from you make it hard to see your message
as a good-faith inquiry: Schnorr multisignature signature aggregates
would make CoinJoins massively less expensive, ... that you'd demand
that your dismissal of it be the final word on the subject leaves
the impression that you're intentionally calling for a misleading
presentation of the trade-offs -- there doesn't appear to be a
disincentive here, but if there were it would be far beyond eliminated
by a planned use of segwit versioning.]
|
