From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14EB2C0051 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 02:41:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04517848A9 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 02:41:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fxoH5DQqzsv1 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 02:41:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-40132.protonmail.ch (mail-40132.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.132]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CF59848A0 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 02:41:26 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 02:41:14 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail; t=1601865684; bh=PiNmr1AYUifZYJwsWQS8wfcAezpKhUVwFiHD56qqIwg=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=OWSA5S9kiOoGjzLKkBbYoqwAhEE8iveqN/4MdoxALArdjP6cK4FQ270zO6SAtV7Uk R19bzQ9nSLcHQU2ddffMZa/xD1HFk0owjRqqM8xIMiYbVsADSQ4+anbdjz12wTj7A1 +YTcAW07ZUzOPklMMxKShHCNsRqeJJEDPdbEjGyg= To: ZmnSCPxj , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: <-9eIH0M9XOXDIGvFaSHljGrkKfd_N7q9POTV4wzobjSGljNwE3snOP2-jPE4Nh1IPovo8tTuQz_nSqgpLWI2hrD5_UGonfn-sjNo7oIbVXU=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <976903d1529adef2aff8839290a91f2c.squirrel@giyzk7o6dcunb2ry.onion> 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 02:41:29 -0000 Good morning Mr. Lee, > Permanent raises can justify permanently increasing the size of the chann= el with the employee. On reflection, this is a bad idea. Suppose I am a cut-throat employee and I want to have an idea of the bi-wee= kly salary of another employee. I make some stupid bet, and lose, with the other employee. I offer to pay the loss of my bet via Lightning, and the other employee, in= all innocence, issues a Lightning invoice to me. The Lightning invoice contains the actual node ID of the other employee. And since I also have a channel with the cut-throat company, I know as well= the node ID of the cut-throat company. I can then look at the gossiped channels and see the size of the channel be= tween the cut-throat company and the other employee, and from there, guess = that this is the bi-weekly salary of that employee. On the other hand --- once the employee has *any* funds at all, they can si= milarly take an offchain-to-onchain swap, and then use the funds to create = another channel to another part of the network. The other employee as well can arrange incoming funds on that other channel= by using offchain-to-onchain swaps to their cold storage. Thus, as an employee gets promoted and pulls a larger bi-weekly salary, the= channel with the cut-throat company becomes less and less an indicator of = their *actual* bi-weekly salary, and there is still some deniability on the= exact size of the salary. At the same time, even if I know the node of the other employee, the size o= f all its channels is also still not a very accurate indicator of their sal= ary at the throat-cutting company. For example, it could be a family node, and the other employee and all her = or his spouses arrange to have their salaries paid to that node. Or the other employee can also run a neck-reconstruction business on the si= de, and also use the same node. (Nodelets for the win?) Regards, ZmnSCPxj