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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF94BC0051
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 6 Oct 2020 04:11:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D787986508
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 6 Oct 2020 04:11:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id E9t0pUIum3SM
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 6 Oct 2020 04:11:04 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40141.protonmail.ch (mail-40141.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.141])
by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC900864FB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 6 Oct 2020 04:11:03 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 04:10:52 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1601957461;
bh=iF+bUYwOyBhoWqO3IeNDjWBUV7tanGJjWxNAazEWUFk=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=en9iXeL536Iu6QMnRZOUUKRhr/CmmO3jB1b+A3067N52EIJqF7OIEYUXm3QGE7cW+
a1rB7+sjPo/1QD8NGreYZOM9PavYdBs+vYFKFTpZb7/pzeGT3al9eJZrCiP5deQQwg
lI2MJNIetvRZW1fQ0WCNK0CezEFizwmIxNcD1hZI=
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <Ad0QZxXDn_2zj8-WAYKLKHGDvd3UVmZvt68HdLoMzahzsv9jXAi-WxcFSTq_HUDWUkVDCr72LlzM7fR_fAU2fPjzO0aBSAV2czeBljubt1Q=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <-9eIH0M9XOXDIGvFaSHljGrkKfd_N7q9POTV4wzobjSGljNwE3snOP2-jPE4Nh1IPovo8tTuQz_nSqgpLWI2hrD5_UGonfn-sjNo7oIbVXU=@protonmail.com>
References: <976903d1529adef2aff8839290a91f2c.squirrel@giyzk7o6dcunb2ry.onion>
<wptxI497skBUI-LOTu3QdUUnNW7v_NYA-BVyoqiDEAPAln6ezFlM2ZXm6ENKsiaMN9C5dZ1HtSTW0kVGnBbF_MKj7-9oY-BQg42C99cheJA=@protonmail.com>
<-9eIH0M9XOXDIGvFaSHljGrkKfd_N7q9POTV4wzobjSGljNwE3snOP2-jPE4Nh1IPovo8tTuQz_nSqgpLWI2hrD5_UGonfn-sjNo7oIbVXU=@protonmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A thought experiment on bitcoin for payroll
privacy
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: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 04:11:06 -0000
Good morning Mr. Lee, and list,
> I can then look at the gossiped channels and see the size of the channel =
between the cut-throat company and the other employee, and from there, gues=
s that this is the bi-weekly salary of that employee.
This can be made an argument against always publishing all channels, so let=
me propose something.
The key identifying information in an invoice is the routehint and the node=
ID itself.
There are already many competing proposals by which short-channel-ids in ro=
utehints can be obscured.
They are primarily proposed for unpublished channels, but nothing in those =
proposals prevents them from being used for published channels.
The destination node ID is never explicitly put in the onion, only implied =
by the short-channel-id in order to save space.
However, the destination node ID *is* used to encrypt the final hop in the =
onion.
So the receiver node can keep around a small number of throwaway keypairs (=
or get those by HD) and use a throwaway to sign the invoice, and when it is=
unable to decode by its normal node ID, try using one of the throwaway key=
pairs.
With both of the above, what remains is the feerate settings in the invoice=
.
If the company node gives different feerates per channel, it is still possi=
ble to identify which channel is *actually* referred to in the invoice.
What the receiver node can do would be to give a small random increase in f=
eerate, which basically overpays the company node, but obscures as well *wh=
ich* channel is actually in the invoice.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
