Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 08:34:46 +0000
To: Adam Gibson <ekaggata@gmail.com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <q_EImVoLLoTdTZI0kPb4olI3FFjIMx9Uj0O8acFefNbsMtU7K25wWz69Alm-jbwZ8SEV1U3Y6Re3705Xi2zQb5129MbtjEVE8dT_JtSSfmA=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <226c43d8-1fad-9d90-ba47-9230118e447d@gmail.com>
References: <TtjH2zicjKr8PBVCMOvA7ryt2z_XXvtrpC4y1wuWSxexNwMdbPGE7vPmu6UnzmfYqYBMxZ8NNoz4VUnODdIcjR4j-E1sYz_FA6ZZMjKHtuM=@protonmail.com>
	<e15c5dd7-6fe1-b253-e129-aeae6493acd1@gmail.com>
	<-yZhdFkKfKAEz1_4GKKSpTxjvR8EDSsH_5-TTh_4X5qwa79igXKR14rh6JASrald-F97o1htWY_kcBQ7IVr7ZH9zOQlOEwzhkWDjTq0d7F4=@protonmail.com>
	<-NShvd5jVPHb7_QmmjQMHX4f-O53noLWK8DKl37mJGcNlIvGoGbBrJVAwly9cHtLrB1tSz8FVL_wSMvaj2uAA760Sgr4Mg6M4VQuKZx0m7w=@protonmail.com>
	<226c43d8-1fad-9d90-ba47-9230118e447d@gmail.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] bustapay BIP :: a practical sender/receiver
	coinjoin protocol
Precedence: list

Good morning Adam,

> And I'm reminded that a related point is made by belcher in the gist
> comment thread iirc (after we discussed it on IRC): over time a
> "PayJoin-only" merchant doing the simplest thing - using a single utxo
> over and over again, will concentrate more and more funds into it, and
> inevitably violating UIH2 in an increasingly dramatic fashion
> (contributing a 100BTC utxo to a 0.1BTC payment etc.). Suggesting it's
> better if there's a mix of payjoin/non-payjoin.

To be pedantic: as I understand bustapay, it would still not violate UIH2 (=
unless I misunderstand UIH2).

Suppose the original transaction is: (0.05 payer, 0.07 payer) -> (0.1 payee=
, 0.02 payer)

Then bustapay with such a PayJoin-only merchant with 100BTC UTXO would give=
: (100 payee, 0.05 payer, 0.07 payer) -> (100.1 payee, 0.02 payer).
As I understand it, this technically does not violate UIH2.

It would still conceivably be interpreted as a payment of 100.1 BTC, from a=
 payer who happens to have massively lopsided UTXOs being owned, but still =
does not violate UIH2.

However, if that 100.1 UTXO is subsequently used to pay a 100.3 payment, th=
en that is used to pay a 100.7 payment, that strongly suggests such a naive=
 PayJoin-only merchant.

Perhaps a simple heuristic against this would be:

1.  For every UTXO you own, flip a coin.
    If all of them come up heads, do not payjoin; just broadcast the origin=
al transaction.
2.  Else, randomly select a UTXO (value not care?) and payjoin with that UT=
XO.

However, I have no proper analysis of the blockchain, so --

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj