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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bob_bitcoin@mcelrath.org>) id 1YrSRY-0007Mp-Vh
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 10 May 2015 14:43:00 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of mcelrath.org
designates 50.31.3.130 as permitted sender)
client-ip=50.31.3.130; envelope-from=bob_bitcoin@mcelrath.org;
helo=mcelrath.org;
Received: from moya.mcelrath.org ([50.31.3.130] helo=mcelrath.org)
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YrSRY-0006k3-63
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 10 May 2015 14:43:00 +0000
Received: from mcelrath.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mcelrath.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id t4AEgsBP020144
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 10 May 2015 14:42:55 GMT
Received: (from mcelrath@localhost)
by mcelrath.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id t4AEgsol020143
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 10 May 2015 14:42:54 GMT
X-Authentication-Warning: mcelrath.org: mcelrath set sender to
bob_bitcoin@mcelrath.org using -f
Date: Sun, 10 May 2015 14:42:54 +0000
From: Bob McElrath <bob_bitcoin@mcelrath.org>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID: <20150510144254.GE6182@mcelrath.org>
References: <CANe1mWzBy8-C+CWfwaOLxJ2wokjy8ytQUh2TkRY_Ummn1BpPzw@mail.gmail.com>
<20150510133525.GD6182@mcelrath.org>
<CAJHLa0NOQkCk=JGoTyNBz8OgKYy_G+M0+a3DP6fGKjsaWq2-aw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0NOQkCk=JGoTyNBz8OgKYy_G+M0+a3DP6fGKjsaWq2-aw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mcelrath.org id
t4AEgsBP020144
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.5 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1YrSRY-0006k3-63
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] A suggestion for reducing the size of the
UTXO database
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 May 2015 14:43:01 -0000
That's a lot of work, a lot of extra utxo's, and a lot of blockchain spam=
, just
so I can do a convoluted form of arithmetic on my balance.
If a tx contained an explicit miner fee and a change address, but did not
compute the change, letting the network compute it (and therefore merge
transactions spending the same utxo), could one add some form of ring sig=
nature
a la Dash to alleviate the worsened privacy implications?
Jeff Garzik [jgarzik@bitpay.com] wrote:
> This has been frequently explored on IRC.
>=20
> My general conclusion is "dollar bills" - pick highly common denominati=
ons of
> bitcoins.=A0 Aggregate to obtain these denominations, but do not aggreg=
ate
> further.
>=20
> This permits merge avoidance (privacy++), easy coinjoin where many hide=
in the
> noise (privacy++), wallet dust de-fragmentation, while avoiding the
> over-aggregation problem where you have consolidated down to one output.
>=20
> Thus a wallet would have several consolidation targets.
>=20
> Another strategy is simply doubling outputs.=A0 Say you pay 0.1 BTC to
> Starbucks.=A0 Add another 0.1 BTC output to yourself, and a final chang=
e output.=A0
> Who can say which output goes to Starbucks?
>=20
> There are many iterations and trade-offs between fragmentation and priv=
acy.
--
Cheers, Bob McElrath
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed=
by
the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes fright=
ened.
But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."=20
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
|
