From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UceSU-000445-0J for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 15 May 2013 16:21:42 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.83.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.83.41; envelope-from=adam.back@gmail.com; helo=mail-ee0-f41.google.com; Received: from mail-ee0-f41.google.com ([74.125.83.41]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UceSS-0001Qj-Si for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 15 May 2013 16:21:41 +0000 Received: by mail-ee0-f41.google.com with SMTP id d4so1166262eek.14 for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 09:21:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent:x-hashcash:x-hashcash:x-hashcash; bh=uMOdF69yCDNEYMF/tTH2UyOx4baJlfvZlEEyAQUT+dM=; b=XVVYvEtc1g96aDfyMGTqi1le4Bw94khE7os35DYoKh8tyAOctD/KF4Sa9qCvwWIikZ H+EaK/fJgVTYheJhen5zREOtL4NB0BRCnWsYXQeCEIbPbCXOGpZWQvnNtLYHuErDzNrq ngB5DM2w/AGjPbE4tknL5OYCUwz7HGU87qb9VPW2KkxB0x15Uhc1t8vYTJ13R22wARO7 C43/IkGExjX41V1xC4Ia4l1/aHmeVFVCU4Q3MtPShAg2gddQAtyGYAtaWnPTL3EuZ9Za dt7jx/wa1bpiJko2WtwI2066paGXT2O7+CvFYaogqZGeRr8sTRnZfvWfQboxrVhutNUM DKRA== X-Received: by 10.15.24.136 with SMTP id j8mr104322806eeu.39.1368634894516; Wed, 15 May 2013 09:21:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from netbook (c83-90.i07-21.onvol.net. [92.251.83.90]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l6sm4941927eem.9.2013.05.15.09.21.32 for (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 15 May 2013 09:21:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by netbook (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A118E2E04CB; Wed, 15 May 2013 18:21:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: by flare (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1000); Wed, 15 May 2013 18:21:29 +0200 Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 18:21:29 +0200 From: Adam Back To: Caleb James DeLisle Message-ID: <20130515162129.GB6156@netbook.cypherspace.org> References: <20130514115151.GA21600@netbook.cypherspace.org> <20130514140902.GA22447@netbook.cypherspace.org> <20130515102509.GA3401@netbook.cypherspace.org> <20130515111906.GA26020@savin> <20130515114956.GA5863@netbook.cypherspace.org> <5193825B.20909@lavabit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5193825B.20909@lavabit.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Hashcash: 1:20:130515:calebdelisle@lavabit.com::6x94A6DxufNk8P2d:0000000000000 0000000000000000000000000au2 X-Hashcash: 1:20:130515:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net::BTRZJO8xiI4XE Fa2:000000000000000000002tyB X-Hashcash: 1:20:130515:adam@cypherspace.org::5+0e1QkpyJlO56dt:00000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000DNK X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) 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 (adam.back[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1UceSS-0001Qj-Si Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] blind symmetric commitment for stronger byzantine voting resilience (Re: bitcoin taint & unilateral revocability) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 16:21:42 -0000 On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 08:40:59AM -0400, Caleb James DeLisle wrote: >If the commitment is opaque at the time of inclusion in the block then >I will create multiple commitments and then after revealing the >commitment and spend to you I will reveal the earlier commitment which >commits the coins to an address I control. Bit-commitments are based on deterministic one-way functions eg like SHA1( SHA256( public key ) ) Obviously it has to be a different one-way function to the coin address calculation which is RIPEMD( SHA256( public key ) ) as that is already public. Alternatively it can be a different serialization using the same hash eg RIPEMD( SHA256( 1 || public key ) ). There is only one commitment possible per public key - so you can only create one commitment that would validate to a receiver, or to the network. The network checks that there are no non-blind double spends of committed coins which it can do as spends require disclosure of the public key, which allows existing commitments to be verified, and it similarly qchecks that there are no blind double-commitments. Each committed coin would be: one-spend-commit = Com( spender pub ), Com( transaction ) where Com is implemented as the above hash. The network just places the commitments in order as with conventional transactions. The committed coins are not linkable to your non-blind coin because you did not reveal your public key in the (largely passive) act of receiving to a coin address. >On the topic of reversibility, I suspect in the long term the lack of >chargebacks will create issues as criminals learn that for the first >time in history, kidnap & ransom is effective. The temporary unlinkability (until commitment reveal) is a necessary side effect, not a cryptographic anonymity feature like zerocoin. The transactions are identical to bitcoins once revealed. How long the committed transaction chains can be between reveals is an implementation choice could be 1 hop, or as long as you like. (Actually it appears to be up to the individual users how long the maximum chain they accept is - the network itself, though ordering the committed spends (if there are multiple spends on the same key) cant even tell how long the commitment payment chains are). Obviously the first coins in the network ordered committed coins on the same key up to the coin value are spends as verified by the recipient, the rest are double-spend and ignored. If someone wants to waste fees by sending more spends than there inputs thats up to them. Probably the typical user doesnt care about long committed chains other than their wallet will bloat if the chains are too long, so probably they would periodically compact it by revealing the long chains. Committed coins are probably a bit less SPV client friendly, though with correct formatting in the merkle trees between blocks, probably a committed coin holder can provide enough proof to an SPV client to verify even multi-spend committed coins directly (without a network feed). About privacy, up to the entire commitment chain can be opened at any time (to other people or to the bitcoin network in general) with the cooperation of any user on the chain (up to the point they saw it), so while the blind commitment protocol is not vulnerable to a > 50% power quorum unilaterally imposed policy (without even needing client updates), it is fully dependent on the good will of the recipients for its temporary unlinkability. Thats the point: it puts policy control in the users hands not in the > 50% power quorum. If you want cryptographic anonymity its better to look to zerocoin. You may have noticed zero coin talked about optional fraud tracing. Its usually trivial to add tracing to an otherwise privay preserving protocol. The blind commitment if implemented as described (and its not obvious how to get more privacy from it) offers somewhat like community policing. Users on the chain can still themselves do fraud tracing, or any policy they choose, on any blind committed coins that they receive. If they dont like the colour of them they can refund them. The point is to enforce that this is a free uncoerced community choice, by individual end users, not a > 50% cpu power quorum choice surreptitiously imposed. Adam