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
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <etotheipi@gmail.com>) id 1TfYu6-000601-HX
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 03 Dec 2012 16:29:58 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.175; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f175.google.com ([209.85.214.175])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1TfYu2-0003rQ-Jo
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 03 Dec 2012 16:29:58 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f175.google.com with SMTP id vb8so2771888obc.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 03 Dec 2012 08:29:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.31.205 with SMTP id c13mr8522681oei.135.1354552189276; Mon,
03 Dec 2012 08:29:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.76.170.230 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:29:49 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CADb9v0+WiNiZcnLN-BUOKK6wwSYaV-y0zrVvrPcXMJAd89o3PQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <80648682-E34A-455E-B34A-6BC24652C3EA@ceptacle.com>
<CAPg+sBi25xP8R03y1VR=q4ZJaeT6FAuV=hXsq_7niSHycpnPuA@mail.gmail.com>
<9CEDE4D4-3685-4F70-953E-15CC50A8AA3F@ceptacle.com>
<CAAS2fgTL=s-vvGsubUu9ZBMidd0wzZdVPb6rEUg+eTMaiipRbA@mail.gmail.com>
<50BCC28A.4060503@gmail.com>
<CANEZrP1SfJ1oybLB7rUGERS7_MxQA4UtB1d0SOQ2mUi8-XwU=Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CADb9v0+WiNiZcnLN-BUOKK6wwSYaV-y0zrVvrPcXMJAd89o3PQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:29:49 -0500
Message-ID: <CALf2ePx95F68q4-5UPatRxMcKL7yAR1dtZY3UVcGuH1_hrWBnw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Pair <stephen@bitpay.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f839dbf1252b104cff5425b
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(etotheipi[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1TfYu2-0003rQ-Jo
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Chain dust mitigation: Demurrage based
Chain Vacuuming
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: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 16:29:58 -0000
--e89a8f839dbf1252b104cff5425b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
These are all valid points. I hadn't really thought much about this point
until you all just brought it up. The reason I so quickly spout off that
phrase, is that I endlessly get requests from Armory users to implement
more anonymity-based features. When I say there are bigger priorities,
they suggest that "anonymity" is a core benefit of Bitcoin and I should be
supporting it. I'm not against anonymity, and I most certainly favor
privacy, but my goal was to produce a versatile client, not one focused on
any one aspect -- there are plenty of people who use it for other reasons
than anonymity.
However, I do like Greg's comment about "attacks" against a
blind-dust-inclusion algorithm, and suggestion to maintain a clustering of
already-linked addresses. That's not terribly difficult to do with the
transaction history in hand, and it could increase how often the logic
triggers. I suppose these hardcore SD players probably have a lot of
one-satoshi outputs that could use vacuuming...
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Stephen Pair <stephen@bitpay.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>
>> Second thing, it's best to carefully separate "anonymity" from
>> "privacy". Privacy is supposed to be a feature of the system (it says
>> so in Satoshis paper) because people demand it. If I loan a tenner to
>> my friend and he is able to find out what I earned last month, then
>> that trade was neither anonymous nor private. In this case I want
>> privacy but anonymity isn't useful. Mixing up anonymity with privacy
>> is not only a public relations problem, but can lead to confusion from
>> users when they, eg, try and buy Bitcoins from an exchange and are
>> asked to provide ID proofs.
>
>
> I would like to second this point...privacy is essential because the
> market demands it. If Bitcoin doesn't do it well (and I would argue that
> it doesn't today), then eventually a competitor to Bitcoin will do it
> better and that would be the beginning of the end for Bitcoin. Debates
> about whether it was or wasn't a core feature are pointless.
>
--e89a8f839dbf1252b104cff5425b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
These are all valid points. =A0I hadn't really thought much about this =
point until you all just brought it up. =A0The reason I so quickly spout of=
f that phrase, is that I endlessly get requests from Armory users to implem=
ent more anonymity-based features. =A0When I say there are bigger prioritie=
s, they suggest that "anonymity" is a core benefit of Bitcoin and=
I should be supporting it. =A0I'm not against anonymity, and I most ce=
rtainly favor privacy, but my goal was to produce a versatile client, not o=
ne focused on any one aspect -- there are plenty of people who use it for o=
ther reasons than anonymity. =A0<div>
<br></div><div>However, I do like Greg's comment about "attacks&qu=
ot; against a blind-dust-inclusion algorithm, and suggestion to maintain a =
clustering of already-linked addresses. =A0That's not terribly difficul=
t to do with the transaction history in hand, and it could increase how oft=
en the logic triggers. =A0I suppose these hardcore SD players probably have=
a lot of one-satoshi outputs that could use vacuuming...</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Stephen Pair <span dir=3D=
"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:stephen@bitpay.com" target=3D"_blank">stephen@b=
itpay.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gma=
il_quote"><div class=3D"im">On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Mike Hearn <sp=
an dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:mike@plan99.net" target=3D"_blank">mik=
e@plan99.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>Second thing, it's best to carefully separate "anonymity"=
; from<br></div>
"privacy". Privacy is supposed to be a feature of the system (it =
says<br>
so in Satoshis paper) because people demand it. If I loan a tenner to<br>
my friend and he is able to find out what I earned last month, then<br>
that trade was neither anonymous nor private. In this case I want<br>
privacy but anonymity isn't useful. Mixing up anonymity with privacy<br=
>
is not only a public relations problem, but can lead to confusion from<br>
users when they, eg, try and buy Bitcoins from an exchange and are<br>
asked to provide ID proofs.</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>I would l=
ike to second this point...privacy is essential because the market demands =
it. =A0If Bitcoin doesn't do it well (and I would argue that it doesn&#=
39;t today), then eventually a competitor to Bitcoin will do it better and =
that would be the beginning of the end for Bitcoin. =A0Debates about whethe=
r it was or wasn't a core feature are pointless.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--e89a8f839dbf1252b104cff5425b--
|
