From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33E0BC016F for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 00:48:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1830024FA8 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 00:48:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MPYMCGqSnrk7 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 00:48:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:05:09 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from secmail.pro (secmail.pro [46.226.110.217]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5AEF2353A for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 00:48:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by secmail.pro (Postfix, from userid 33) id D8E254187A; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 02:43:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from secmailw453j7piv.onion (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by secmail.pro (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2DA3192D684; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:43:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (SquirrelMail authenticated user lee.chiffre@secmail.pro) by giyzk7o6dcunb2ry.onion with HTTP; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:43:40 -0700 Message-ID: <5b77933071fa02e900183d8d5e24d866.squirrel@giyzk7o6dcunb2ry.onion> In-Reply-To: <82d90d57-ad07-fc7d-4aca-2b227ac2068d@riseup.net> References: <82d90d57-ad07-fc7d-4aca-2b227ac2068d@riseup.net> Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:43:40 -0700 From: "Mr. Lee Chiffre" To: "Chris Belcher" , "Bitcoin Protocol Discussion" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.22 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 01:08:08 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Design for a CoinSwap implementation for massively improving Bitcoin privacy and fungibility 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: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 00:48:56 -0000 > > === Combining multi-transaction with routing === > > Routing and multi-transaction must be combined to get both benefits. If > Alice owns multiple UTXOs (of value 6 BTC, 8 BTC and 1 BTC) then this is > easy with this configuration: > > Alice > (6 BTC) (8 BTC) (1 BTC) > | | | > | | | > v v v > Bob > (5 BTC) (5 BTC) (5 BTC) > | | | > | | | > v v v > Charlie > (9 BTC) (5 BTC) (1 BTC) > | | | > | | | > v v v > Dennis > (7 BTC) (4 BTC) (4 BTC) > | | | > | | | > v v v > Alice > Great work Chris and you have my respects for your contributions to Bitcoin. A concern I have with bitcoin is scalability and privacy. Both are important. The reasons people bash on Monero is also the same issue Bitcoin has. The very large transaction size to achieve acceptable privacy on a distributed financial network. Im not shilling Monero here. I am only saying that bitcoin transactions with similar privacy properties are at least equally as large as Monero transactions. Coinjoin on Monero can be compared to ring signatures in Monero from the view of using decoys to help conceal the source. From this proposal is this to say that transactions will be at least 12 times larger in size to achieve the property of privacy that bitcoin is currently missing? Another thing to consider is that if coinswaps cannot be sent as a payment then a coinswap needs to take place after every transaction to keep the privacy and unlinkability from your other bitcoin transactions. I always thought that CoinSwap would be and is a very much needed thing that needs developed. The ability to swap coins with other people in a trustless way and way that is not linkable to the public blockchain. But how can this be scalable at all with the multiple branches and layers? This is a good idea in theory but my concern would be the scalability issues this creates. Do you have any comments on this? Thank you -- lee.chiffre@secmail.pro PGP 97F0C3AE985A191DA0556BCAA82529E2025BDE35