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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDFE4C013E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 23 Feb 2020 00:59:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A582274B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 23 Feb 2020 00:59:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id yCH-D7Uly0je
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 23 Feb 2020 00:59:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail4.protonmail.ch (mail4.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.27])
by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B863A226DB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 23 Feb 2020 00:59:55 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 00:59:46 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=default; t=1582419593;
bh=G48ezMbxh+vm9JLE27w3LHEpPbaOf6ogm4H53/JGlew=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From;
b=SXuLCaWnbNiPOkDYJIUfX5hwjI6tTUcmwr2KuXxe4IGngfVM3ZDnwTkLEgPIt3HlZ
VAwg8V7a8qKsKpPyllck1OOV0bQQi3fle2pbmyInL/1jp0bVp7kSj/vC8iC+82XlkH
RiLXKWeFatSeKZ2cak+gQzQv7ZDfR2L/aqlOEWWQ=
To: AdamISZ <AdamISZ@protonmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <x7A06kB4r0DzPTeDDWWouWLXT5_5YRaHax76XP_ToY0aUAPHXVt8Wuvf3RRpFpguIFD53Ho_KQM4WYEkFl6ZZlVw6KIk-GP5izmGDVppfvA=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <L95umnyb-GwoyP_ZWM7oNmMbhooYpCFXoKAGRPoPOpGpMGhMHQWuczKhJ2VX2nrZt3jaJ5bOMy5dvQ3DYqs_O_eEsA_63dd2_rvdoOzoGoI=@protonmail.com>
References: <CALZpt+E4Mr=g8zw95tyteGh53DH1mZ2HhNzQdy92+ErTtx3VbQ@mail.gmail.com>
<L95umnyb-GwoyP_ZWM7oNmMbhooYpCFXoKAGRPoPOpGpMGhMHQWuczKhJ2VX2nrZt3jaJ5bOMy5dvQ3DYqs_O_eEsA_63dd2_rvdoOzoGoI=@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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] LN & Coinjoin, a Great Tx Format Wedding
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 00:59:58 -0000
Good morning waxwing,
> =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original =
Message =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90
> On Friday, 21 February 2020 22:17, Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-=
dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>
> > How can a Bitcoin tranaction leak protocol usage ?
> >
> > - the output type (p2sh, p2wsh, ...)
> > - the spending policy (2-of-3 multisig, timelock, hashlock,...)
> > - outputs ordering (BIP69)
> > - nLocktime/nSequence
> > - RBF-signaling
> > - Equal-value outputs
> > - weird watermark (LN commitment tx obfuscated commitment number)
> > - fees strategy like CPFP
> > - in-protocol announcements [0]
>
> Good list.
> Another one, usually wouldn't be protocol as much as wallet leakage, but =
could be: utxo selection algorithm (which of course may be difficult to ded=
uce, but often, far from impossible).
> (Also trivial and increasingly irrelevant, but nVersion).
>
> With regards to coinjoin in this context (I know your points are much bro=
ader), my comment is:
> For existing protocols (joinmarket's, wasabi's, samourai's), in the equal=
-outs paradigm, I don't see much that can be done in this area.
> But I would ask people to consider CoinJoinXT[1] more seriously in a tapr=
oot/schnorr world, since it addresses this exact point. With a short (not c=
ross-block like swaps or LN setup) interaction, participants can arrange th=
e effect of coinjoin without the on-chain watermark of coinjoin (so, stegan=
ographic). The taproot/schnorr part is needed there because multisig is req=
uired from transaction to transaction in that protocol, so doing it today i=
s less interesting (albeit still interesting).
CoinJoinXT is indeed something I am interested in at some point: https://zm=
nscpxj.github.io/bitcoin/coinjoinxt.html
The above writeup is a client-server model, with multiple clients mixing.
If none of the participants reveal that a CoinJoinXT was done, then the gra=
ph is difficult to detect as such.
However, if any participants reveal that a CoinJoinXT was done, it has a fa=
llback such that it is almost as good as an equal-value CoinJoin (but takes=
up more block space).
At least it is not immediately obvious that it is in fact a CoinJoinXT from=
*just* a simple transaction analysis, which we hope is enough to deter sim=
ple policies like "check N transactions back for a transaction with more th=
an one equal-valued output".
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
