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
|
Return-Path: <adam.ficsor73@gmail.com>
Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62675C016F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:21:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D2BC24C10
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:21:10 +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 C26kV623pfHB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:21:09 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-lf1-f50.google.com (mail-lf1-f50.google.com
[209.85.167.50])
by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96B862588A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:21:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-lf1-f50.google.com with SMTP id e125so3308878lfd.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 11 Jun 2020 04:21:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=wRqwIiTk3o48YktqCMx8NonRJLXSG3tkP46VkENXWOI=;
b=B5ocoX/6sAzYWgagGplOW7WF2qptormu9NhC1mxZRveqaTlHC+WFOzHUibdZ9+Andw
D1afA+MthuCoCyuPKYnyZNCojBCkchr0K4YZsz221GH8vnGUNTZGX6deGZSFAuaZtSbM
anwZdgVCrVOxz+VeH4kO2VleSY5BFBr6HurpYIw+UuT+Ku6Xj7ehNsRNx/+2FdlZcJ4Z
YeVUZA9Xs51TaV4/oiRzVcitG3pLlGk80uwny2rqwmRPAz7qt3UFLULNJL6E1sMiDRWa
bkaJ/iF4zJ8fX8kWjRSjm5cvjTt7MM0HlQ7X24qNFmvO3zhW0Z99v5yZeoODok1GX3YI
PsWw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=wRqwIiTk3o48YktqCMx8NonRJLXSG3tkP46VkENXWOI=;
b=AxqCz1zBeuOBGocsAdijt2Led0hj2Pphkdl94FtyKe32VSfHEyurlb5RorjRYRyH2W
SA4o8w8Qzx+YUsKygnmBj9xf3jnlFWOAXrUfV21vzJwCrg95b/okQDOyq/8UYOO8kQwM
B/dkFMa0ax4h1zFRB1OgOn2bJ7hv3u3yJRjAYMWN1J470BwfkgnGs8aIwhpSd9OXWED+
AuHQyttukN87dg5lSASsTkFlZua9KtQS7eePrw/0p7lt67yCi5H5w+S8Fe7fNDbOk32u
oHdmuCZj7LfpnATebSiuhaNLvLK16kGhjxlziBeUx52AGyklbYkoosYP7RI5EeYZKZ7O
qB6A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532DbbW8sNhA7x1im0OMLTvAgcafTqXV976HfuX0EpglePvq9o1a
tH245Lto9a2384TTaQJuH98uu2Pd3nQdPQj9fe4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw/0lK0lDsiGxJwfOvlN3cfZUOf4z5oyHGtsa6YEzjOGmxbpoArYvITfy6nY2PmG23HEkgx+kU7geoWh0q7B64=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:691:: with SMTP id
t17mr4230513lfe.85.1591874466513;
Thu, 11 Jun 2020 04:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAEPKjgfbQoXkB=cEp5Jc28ZihRSQe50M2x7k6=AjW+Vo5f=79g@mail.gmail.com>
<e7ab27e5-e235-f6a2-5023-1cdda5c12d0b@riseup.net>
<HOE_CSoWptTdBQtIqu4GTe0LlDZtnS1jEBUEf4H-wFlD7Il0-y8TikYWxGc2DPYYErJPMePIuwIO752TyNfIleKYPrkDzLQFh2l6FAKo6jU=@protonmail.com>
<8ea7b021fcc73fc4db8881ce37726f26.squirrel@giyzk7o6dcunb2ry.onion>
In-Reply-To: <8ea7b021fcc73fc4db8881ce37726f26.squirrel@giyzk7o6dcunb2ry.onion>
From: nopara73 <adam.ficsor73@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:20:56 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEPKjgf8nhxn031ra4vqfJW7WV8RKdxhDtixMQnxcPD0NaSreg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mr. Lee Chiffre" <lee.chiffre@secmail.pro>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001a862805a7cd28a4"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:46:57 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Tainting, CoinJoin, PayJoin, CoinSwap
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: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:21:10 -0000
--0000000000001a862805a7cd28a4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thank you all for your replies, I think everyone agrees here how it "should
be" and indeed I risked my post and my used terminology to further
legitimize the thinking of adversaries.
I'd have one clarification to my original post. It may not be clear why I
put PJ/CS to the same box. One way of thinking of CoinSwap is to swap coin
histories and PayJoin is to share coin histories. For the purposes of this
attack the consequences are roughly the same so that's why I think it's ok
to put them under the same umbrella in this discussion, but I wouldn't die
for it :)
And indeed I perhaps wrongly called this the "Taint Issue", maybe it should
be called "Coin Discrimination Issue" or something like that, not sure if
we have a term for this, but I'm sure we should have a term for this as
unlike some other, so far theoretical attacks on Bitcoin's fungibility, it
is currently being applied in practice.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 7:24 AM Mr. Lee Chiffre via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Thought provoking. In my opinion bitcoin should be designed in a way to
> where there is no distinction between "clean" bitcoins and "dirty"
> bitcoins. If one bitcoin is considered dirty then all bitcoins should be
> considered dirty. Fungibility is important. And bitcoin or its users
> should not be concerned with pleasing governments. Bitcoin should be or
> remain neutral. The term "clean" or "dirty" is defined by whatever
> government is in power. Bitcoin is not to please government but to be
> independent of government control and reliance on government or any other
> centralized systems. To act as censorship resistant money to give people
> freedom from tyranny. I'm just saying that if anyone can determine if a
> bitcoin is clean or dirty then I think we are doing something wrong. What
> is great with certain protocols like coinjoin coinswap and payjoin there
> is that plausible deniability that hopefully would spread the entire
> "taint" of bitcoin collectively either for real or just as a possibility
> to any blockchain analysis entities (with no real way to tell or interpre=
t
> with accuracy).
>
> Bitcoin should be designed in a way where the only way to stop "dirty"
> bitcoins is to reject all bitcoins.
>
> If "dirty" bitcoins is actually a real thing then I guess I could have fu=
n
> by polluting random peoples bitcoin addresses with "dirty" coins right? N=
o
> way to prove if it is a self transfer or an unsolicited "donation". I
> just do not see how any bitcoin UTXO censorship could work because of
> plausible deniability.
>
> If any company actually used UTXO censorship then customers can just use
> services that are respecting of freedom and do not use censorship.
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--=20
Best,
=C3=81d=C3=A1m
--0000000000001a862805a7cd28a4
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Thank you all for your replies, I think everyone agrees he=
re how it "should be" and indeed I risked my post and my used=C2=
=A0terminology to further legitimize the thinking of adversaries.<br>I'=
d have one clarification to my original post. It may not be clear why I put=
PJ/CS to the same box. One way of thinking of CoinSwap is to swap coin his=
tories and PayJoin is to share coin histories. For the purposes of this att=
ack the consequences are roughly the same so that's why I think it'=
s ok to put them under the same umbrella in this discussion,=C2=A0but I wou=
ldn't die for=C2=A0it :)<br><br>And indeed I perhaps wrongly called thi=
s the "Taint Issue", maybe it should be called "Coin Discrim=
ination Issue" or something like that, not sure if we have a term for =
this, but I'm sure we should have a term for this as unlike some other,=
so far theoretical attacks on Bitcoin's fungibility, it is currently b=
eing applied in practice.<br><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div =
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 7:24 AM Mr. Lee Ch=
iffre via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundati=
on.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><bloc=
kquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:=
1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Thought provoking. In my opini=
on bitcoin should be designed in a way to<br>
where there is no distinction between "clean" bitcoins and "=
dirty"<br>
bitcoins. If one bitcoin is considered dirty then all bitcoins should be<br=
>
considered dirty. Fungibility is important. And bitcoin or its users<br>
should not be concerned with pleasing governments. Bitcoin should be or<br>
remain neutral. The term "clean" or "dirty" is defined =
by whatever<br>
government is in power. Bitcoin is not to please government but to be<br>
independent of government control and reliance on government or any other<b=
r>
centralized systems. To act as censorship resistant money to give people<br=
>
freedom from tyranny. I'm just saying that if anyone can determine if a=
<br>
bitcoin is clean or dirty then I think we are doing something wrong. What<b=
r>
is great with certain protocols like coinjoin coinswap and payjoin there<br=
>
is that plausible deniability that hopefully would spread the entire<br>
"taint" of bitcoin collectively either for real or just as a poss=
ibility <br>
to any blockchain analysis entities (with no real way to tell or interpret<=
br>
with accuracy).<br>
<br>
Bitcoin should be designed in a way where the only way to stop "dirty&=
quot;<br>
bitcoins is to reject all bitcoins.<br>
<br>
If "dirty" bitcoins is actually a real thing then I guess I could=
have fun<br>
by polluting random peoples bitcoin addresses with "dirty" coins =
right? No<br>
way to prove if it is a self transfer or an unsolicited "donation"=
;.=C2=A0 I<br>
just do not see how any bitcoin UTXO censorship could work because of<br>
plausible deniability.<br>
<br>
If any company actually used UTXO censorship then customers can just use<br=
>
services that are respecting of freedom and do not use censorship.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir=3D"ltr"=
class=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div=
dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><span style=3D"font-size:13.3333px">Best,<br>=C3=81d=
=C3=A1m</span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
--0000000000001a862805a7cd28a4--
|
