From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CDD2259D for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:11:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from pectw.vm.bytemark.co.uk (pectw.vm.bytemark.co.uk [80.68.92.123]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 117ACD3 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:11:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pectw.net; s=dkim_test; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version: References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=Mp0eqInsnG9QaGtcsPJA4ccY00M8E+7xMm4iv8Y+yAM=; b=k/lbf9S9r5WLz4qZMsIxczi8av /HmDM4zgIbMynT7jEsyVjKOl9/pzihqM5gOorCo473/fevdbOjQ+jJHf00F6txq0JeTnFuoLeJiFS 6f5Kx6HEtcvaP97oJNFwig/BY; Received: from host86-164-47-72.range86-164.btcentralplus.com ([86.164.47.72] helo=svetlana.localhost) by pectw.vm.bytemark.co.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1h5YNn-0007xg-K6; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:11:31 +0000 From: Alistair Mann To: ZmnSCPxj Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:11:29 +0000 Message-ID: <119468467.Oh7zB5fVM7@dprfs-d5766> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.2 (Linux/4.4.0-18-generic; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <12139028.TiJ4v5RR02@dprfs-d5766> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,URI_NOVOWEL 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: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 17:05:05 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Pre BIP: Solving for spam and other abuse with an HTLB X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:11:37 -0000 Many thanks for your thoughts, ZmnSCPxj. > I believe there is indeed an important usecase for HTLB over HTLC, which is > to improve the anonymity set. An HTLB over HTLC would be indistinguishable > onchain from other uses of HTLC; assuming that HTLCs have other uses, this > is a (small?) plus to privacy. > > Note that the redundant would have to be given by Alice to Bob, > since using a standardized one will also reveal use of HTLB over HTLC > instead of hiding it among other HTLC UTXOs. Both these are good observations and I'll act on them. > Another thing to improve privacy would be to apply the Funding Transaction > pattern: https://zmnscpxj.github.io/offchain/generalized.html I've not read of the FTP before; I welcome it, and take on board that it improves privacy by keeping a script offline. My first thought is that doesn't affect the suggested BIP, so my next update here won't include it. I recognise it would improve mainnet use of scripts though, so do expect to return to it. Cheers, -- Alistair Mann