Return-Path: Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62675C016F for ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:21:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-f50.google.com with SMTP id e125so3308878lfd.1 for ; 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: <8ea7b021fcc73fc4db8881ce37726f26.squirrel@giyzk7o6dcunb2ry.onion> In-Reply-To: <8ea7b021fcc73fc4db8881ce37726f26.squirrel@giyzk7o6dcunb2ry.onion> From: nopara73 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:20:56 +0200 Message-ID: To: "Mr. Lee Chiffre" , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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
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.
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 :)

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.


On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 7:24 AM Mr. Lee Ch= iffre via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Thought provoking. In my opini= on 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 poss= ibility
to any blockchain analysis entities (with no real way to tell or interpret<= br> with accuracy).

Bitcoin should be designed in a way where the only way to stop "dirty&= quot;
bitcoins is to reject all bitcoins.

If "dirty" bitcoins is actually a real thing then I guess I could= have fun
by polluting random peoples bitcoin addresses with "dirty" coins = right? No
way to prove if it is a self transfer or an unsolicited "donation"= ;.=C2=A0 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/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--
Best,
=C3=81d= =C3=A1m
--0000000000001a862805a7cd28a4--