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
|
Return-Path: <kristovatlas.lists@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C9E85AE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 29 Apr 2016 18:22:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f51.google.com with SMTP id o133so1859985vka.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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: <CAGH37S+5FAqHzOTE8H0E8HNb5cr1k06MqB2r3k92jqkc=eXWNg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kristov Atlas <kristovatlas.lists@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 <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: 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
<div dir=3D"ltr">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?<div><br></div><div>From this link:=C2=A0<a href=3D"http=
s://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/">https://bitcoincore.org=
/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/</a></div><div><br></div><div>"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."</div><div><br></div><div=
>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.</div><div><br></div><div>I noticed jl2012 =
objected to this characterization here, but has not yet provided evidence:<=
/div><div><a href=3D"https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4gyhsj/what_=
are_the_impacts_of_segwits_75_fee_discount/d2lvxmw">https://www.reddit.com/=
r/Bitcoin/comments/4gyhsj/what_are_the_impacts_of_segwits_75_fee_discount/d=
2lvxmw</a></div><div><br></div><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:</div><div><br></div><div><a href=3D"https://docs.=
google.com/spreadsheets/d/1p9jZYXxX1HDtKCxTy79Zj5PrQaF20mxbD7BAuz0KC8s/edit=
?usp=3Dsharing">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1p9jZYXxX1HDtKCxTy79=
Zj5PrQaF20mxbD7BAuz0KC8s/edit?usp=3Dsharing</a></div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><div><br></div><div><div>Please refrain f=
rom bringing up Schnorr signatures in your reply, since they are not on any=
immediate roadmap.</div></div></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>=
Kristov</div></div>
--94eb2c0bdf96e9ff4d0531a3b9e5--
|
