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
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <tim.ruffing@mmci.uni-saarland.de>)
id 1XF9s1-0001GL-TR for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 06 Aug 2014 22:39:46 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of
mmci.uni-saarland.de designates 139.19.1.49 as permitted
sender) client-ip=139.19.1.49;
envelope-from=tim.ruffing@mmci.uni-saarland.de;
helo=hera.mpi-klsb.mpg.de;
Received: from infao0809.mpi-klsb.mpg.de ([139.19.1.49]
helo=hera.mpi-klsb.mpg.de)
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XF9rz-0002bX-L8
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 06 Aug 2014 22:39:45 +0000
Received: from srv-00-126.mpi-klsb.mpg.de ([139.19.1.29]:57867
helo=zak.mpi-klsb.mpg.de) by hera.mpi-klsb.mpg.de (envelope-from
<tim.ruffing@mmci.uni-saarland.de>)
with esmtp (Exim 4.80) id 1XF9bb-0005XD-B9
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 07 Aug 2014 00:22:50 +0200
Received: from 55d423fd.access.ecotel.net ([85.212.35.253]:43361
helo=calzone.localnet) by zak.mpi-klsb.mpg.de (envelope-from
<tim.ruffing@mmci.uni-saarland.de>)
with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
(Exim 4.80) id 1XF9bb-0003XG-12
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 07 Aug 2014 00:22:47 +0200
From: Tim Ruffing <tim.ruffing@mmci.uni-saarland.de>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 00:22:31 +0200
Message-ID: <8137823.B0x87S28xY@calzone>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.15.8-1-ARCH; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; )
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1984975.ukO2rNCWy2";
micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-MPI-Local-Sender: true
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.0 T_TVD_FUZZY_SECURITIES BODY: T_TVD_FUZZY_SECURITIES
-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
X-Headers-End: 1XF9rz-0002bX-L8
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] CoinShuffle: decentralized CoinJoin without
trusted third parties
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: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 22:39:46 -0000
--nextPart1984975.ukO2rNCWy2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hey,
We (a group of researchers in Germany) propose a decentralized protocol=
for=20
CoinJoin, a way to mix coins among users to improve anonymity. Our prot=
ocol is=20
called CoinShuffle. We believe that CoinShuffle is a way to implement C=
oinJoin=20
in the original spirit of Bitcoin, i.e., decentralized and without trus=
ted=20
third parties. (If you are not familiar with CoinJoin, the idea is expl=
ained=20
here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D279249.0 )
The protocol is essentially a clever way to create a CoinJoin transacti=
on.=20
Recall that the idea of CoinJoin is mixing with one SINGLE transaction =
that=20
has multiple input addresses and multiple fresh output addresses (i.e.,=
one=20
pair of addresses per user). The advantage of CoinJoin over mixing with=
a=20
server or trusted party is that nobody can steal coins. Each user can c=
heck if=20
the single transaction sends enough coins to his fresh output address. =
If this=20
is not the case, the user can just refuse to sign the transaction and n=
othing=20
(bad) happens.
The difficulty in CoinJoin is to let the participants announce their fr=
esh=20
output addresses without breaking anonymity: Of course, if a participan=
t of=20
the protocol just announces "I have 1 BTC at address X now" and "I woul=
d like=20
to have it back at address Y", then everybody can link X and Y and mixi=
ng is=20
useless. A naive approach is to send these two messages via a secure ch=
annel=20
to a server that organizes the whole mixing. While the server cannot st=
eal=20
coins, the server still has to be trusted for anonymity, because it kno=
ws=20
which input addresses belong to which output addresses.
We present the list of CoinShuffle's features at the end of this e-mail=
. An=20
overview over the technical details can be found on the project page:
http://crypsys.mmci.uni-saarland.de/projects/CoinShuffle/
Moreover, for the full details, have a look at the research paper on=20=
CoinShuffle that can be found here:
http://crypsys.mmci.uni-saarland.de/projects/CoinShuffle/coinshuffle.pd=
f
The paper has been accepted at a major European academic conference on=20=
security (ESORICS). We will present the idea there.=20
Our Proof-of-concept Implementation
=2D----------------------------------
There is a proof-of-concept implementation (written in Python) availabl=
e on=20
our project page. It is really only a proof-of-concept and it implement=
s only=20
the announcement of the addresses, not the creation of the transaction.=
=20
Moreover, the code is CERTAINLY INSECURE and not well-written; our only=
goal=20
was to demonstrate feasibility and estimate the performance of our appr=
oach.
Our Future Plans
=2D---------------
Now we are planning a full, open-source implementation of the protocol.=
Of=20
course, we would like to build on top of an existing wide-spread client=
. Since=20
we do not have much experience in the design of existing Bitcoin client=
s, we=20
would appreciate any help in the process. In particular, we did not dec=
ide=20
which of the existing clients we would like to extend. Any hints toward=
s this=20
decisions would very helpful. Help in design and coding would be great =
but we=20
also would like to hear your comments, criticism, and improvements for =
the=20
protocol itself.
CoinShuffle Features
=2D-------------------
CoinShuffle has the following features:
- Decentralization / no third party:
There is no (trusted or untrusted) third party in a run of the protocol=
.=20
(Still, as in all mixing solutions, users need some way to gather toget=
her=20
before they can run the protocol. This can be done via a P2P protocol i=
f a=20
decentralized solution is desired also for this step.)
=20
- Unlinkability of input and output addresses:
Nobody, in particular no server (there is none!), can link input and ou=
tput=20
addresses of a mixing transaction, as long as there are at least two ho=
nest=20
participants in run of the protocol.
=20
(This is not a weakness: If there is only one honest participant, meani=
ngful=20
mixing is just impossible, no matter how it is organized. If all the ot=
her=20
participants collude, they know all their input and output addresses an=
d can=20
immediately determine the output address of the honest participant.)
- Security against thefts:
As explained above, nobody can steal coins during the mixing because of=
the=20
CoinJoin principle. =20
Every participant can verify that his money will not be stolen. Otherwi=
se, he=20
refuses to sign the transaction and nothing will happen.
- Robustness against denial-of-service:
In CoinJoin, a single malicious (or malfunctioning) client suffices to =
stop=20
the whole protocol (e.g., by just refusing to sing the transaction with=
out a=20
proper reason.) This can easily lead to DoS attacks but these can be co=
untered=20
in CoinShuffle.
=20
While in case of disruption, the current run of the protocol has to sto=
p,=20
CoinShuffle addresses this problem as follows: In case of active disru=
ption,=20
i.e., some participant sends wrong messages, the protocol provides a pr=
oof of=20
this misbehavior. Then the honest protocol parties can start a new run =
of the=20
protocol without the misbehaving participant. Also in case of passive=20=
disruption, i.e., some participant does not respond (for whatever reaso=
n), the=20
remaining participants can agree on starting a new run without this=20
participant. This ensures that the protocol will finally succeed even i=
n the=20
presence of malicious participant (although this can take quite a while=
then).
- Only public-key encryption and signatures:
The protocol requires only well-established cryptographic primitives. B=
esides=20
signatures and hash functions (that are already used by Bitcoin), only=20=
standard public-key encryption is necessary.
=20
- Efficiency:
A run of the protocol with 30 participants takes less than 100 seconds =
(in a=20
setting with reasonable bandwidth and delay). This is not much, given t=
hat 10=20
min (on average) are required to confirm the mixing transaction anyway.=
=20
The costs are almost completely caused by communication. The computatio=
n=20
overhead is minimal. (This is the main achievement actually. In theory,=
it is=20
clear that a protocol with all the properties can be built. However, ge=
neric=20
constructions cannot be used in practice yet, because the computation a=
nd=20
communication costs are huge.)
=2D Compatibility:
As CoinShuffle works on top of Bitcoin, it is fully compatible with the=
=20
current Bitcoin system. No changes to the Bitcoin protocol are required=
.
By the way: The NXT cryptocurrency picked up our idea and an implementa=
tion of=20
CoinShuffle for a part of NXT is under way. (=20
https://twitter.com/comefrombeyond/status/485429369268350977 )
=20
TL,DR:
Mixing is the way to improve anonymity in Bitcoin now, as it does not r=
equire=20
changes to the Bitcoin protocol. We propose CoinShuffle, a decentralize=
d=20
protocol to perform mixing in a secure way without trusted third partie=
s, see=20
http://crypsys.mmci.uni-saarland.de/projects/CoinShuffle/ for a technic=
al=20
overview. Our next step is to implement the protocol. Help in design an=
d=20
coding would be great but we also would like to hear your comments, cri=
ticism,=20
and improvements for the protocol itself.=20
Best,
Tim Ruffing, Pedro Moreno-Sanchez, Aniket Kate
--nextPart1984975.ukO2rNCWy2
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=Vj03
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart1984975.ukO2rNCWy2--
|