Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C9E85AE for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 18:22:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f51.google.com (mail-vk0-f51.google.com [209.85.213.51]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C03717D for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 18:22:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f51.google.com with SMTP id o133so1859985vka.0 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 11:22:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=Gvox55wBH1rMoqDPRKMvSWx5b1yd5zn3qKmfkOTu+pE=; b=umBhElGCE/0fdaanq+TcNQrWJvnjvT2hUXjgnMCuV2lBtJ6SPjHEdq27jsjpGql6Dp NxvTyE7oVhOnWFezHjumBueJtQS0bb/whAz2Vo3/gzVxTVwbOUVSIQK57TBCqPLf02HO cUUmEUOkXDtN1HO0h2ovB6vy6UfxudPwtN0JXF2K57vOIuHVCTBv+SJOccPvNYzB4a90 QVHlhycqykMj6KpGqxF1d04KIMAyphttKx/W03fvffl7wmw/8CpODyMGXw2YuT7IuCkC sQXoqdL40KcEcJ/SngsaXTaqvP9ASCFhxIl27GwumRFqZbyONMYQfXEk85WsQy4iJsn5 fx8A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=Gvox55wBH1rMoqDPRKMvSWx5b1yd5zn3qKmfkOTu+pE=; b=Ylg2EH7HHaCSqhoL3eR29mYyqDVak8aqL66zeBAgNiNKKTVHNAg0rc2dCP2l3YDnz3 LKuNcoA/hPrj/k6Y0UNfy1PfbwkrYupAsWiuBoS34zVpKaDKPkEUTMK/Qp3f7k4kG+sr jPmKxIaSNPM8ONusKO3BXCzLm4gg3Qq7eTTMOLNe3CvmGVYQUSzWfMCEXyMfgpLe8BEx wAuJu57GRuQzhFwTYpRNZonp+JH0ReGlQgdZHfobPxNF/csNUX3bJ0fJoHnjwp5fKQ1h 2BkOiAU2v+kBlwOSVZsCfLH1/563Rr7dtkV0PmxUQej7e8h114PR4doO3H381qKQzF9Z YsWQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUEYs9iRKxussuvxuXQelfPr7gVuBVXcUkgE/m1AnILtzqt2YxlkYd5CQOHpq0HlwwclgUk8g2l3NFm9A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.176.68.162 with SMTP id n31mr13027563uan.26.1461954152101; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 11:22:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.176.64.225 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 11:22:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:22:32 -0400 Message-ID: From: Kristov Atlas To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0bdf96e9ff4d0531a3b9e5 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 16:01:59 +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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 18:22:34 -0000 --94eb2c0bdf96e9ff4d0531a3b9e5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Has anyone thought about the effects of the 75% Segregated Witness subsidy on CoinJoin transactions and CoinJoin-like transactions? Better yet, has anyone collected data or come up with a methodology for the collection of data? From this link: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ "Segwit improves the situation here by making signature data, which does not impact the UTXO set size, cost 75% less than data that does impact the UTXO set size. This is expected to encourage users to favour the use of transactions that minimise impact on the UTXO set in order to minimise fees, and to encourage developers to design smart contracts and new features in a way that will also minimise the impact on the UTXO set." My expectation from the above is that this will serve as a financial disincentive against CoinJoin transactions. However, if people have evidence otherwise, I'd like to hear it. I noticed jl2012 objected to this characterization here, but has not yet provided evidence: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4gyhsj/what_are_the_impacts_of_segwits_75_fee_discount/d2lvxmw 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: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1p9jZYXxX1HDtKCxTy79Zj5PrQaF20mxbD7BAuz0KC8s/edit?usp=sharing As we know, a "traditional" CoinJoin transaction creates roughly 2x UTXOs for everyone 1 it consumes -- 1 spend and 1 change -- unless address reuse comes into play. Please refrain from bringing up Schnorr signatures in your reply, since they are not on any immediate roadmap. Thanks, Kristov --94eb2c0bdf96e9ff4d0531a3b9e5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Has anyone thought about the effects of the 75% Segregated= Witness subsidy on CoinJoin transactions and CoinJoin-like transactions? B= etter yet, has anyone collected data or come up with a methodology for the = collection of data?


"Segwit i= mproves the situation here by making signature data, which does not impact = the UTXO set size, cost 75% less than data that does impact the UTXO set si= ze. This is expected to encourage users to favour the use of transactions t= hat minimise impact on the UTXO set in order to minimise fees, and to encou= rage developers to design smart contracts and new features in a way that wi= ll also minimise the impact on the UTXO set."

My expectation from the above is that this will serve as a financial disin= centive against CoinJoin transactions. However, if people have evidence oth= erwise, I'd like to hear it.

I noticed jl2012 = objected to this characterization here, but has not yet provided evidence:<= /div>

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 -- 1 spend and 1 change -- unless address= reuse comes into play.

Please refrain f= rom bringing up Schnorr signatures in your reply, since they are not on any= immediate roadmap.

Thanks,
= Kristov
--94eb2c0bdf96e9ff4d0531a3b9e5--