public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
	<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] blind symmetric commitment for stronger byzantine voting resilience (Re: bitcoin taint & unilateral revocability)
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 19:45:34 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQQk0Lhmon4FxK7NATDVkaY13DBmJgQk4riJLE1h_Ak0w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2dFi-3nZhYpaA9RfJ8N2e-GQ_YQtKMdnFfPx-9YLU6MA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> Conceptually it sounds a lot like ZeroCoin (not in implementation)?

Zerocoin conceals the connection from everyone forever, assuming the
underlying trapdoor problem is computational infeasible, but at great
cost.

Adamcoin, depending on how its done, at most conceals the transactions
from people who aren't a party to them... though as time goes on
eventually everyone becomes a party to a sufficiently old coin, and
avoiding publication creates quadratic costs in evaluating a private
clique's claims.... so instead an implementation would make the
identities public but only once they're burred a bit.

Perhaps an extreme version of the idea is easier to understand. Ignore
DOS attacks for a moment and pretend there is never any address reuse:

Everyone creates txouts paying a P2SH addresses that have a OP_PUSH
nonce in them and tell you recipient the nonce out of band.

When the recipients spend those coins they provide the script but not the nonce.

The recipient knows what coins he's spending, but the public does not.

The public can tell there is no double spend though, because they'd
see the same script twice. The person he's paying may be skeptical
that he actually has any coin and didn't just mine some gibberish, but
our spender tells that their receiver the nonce, and that person can
see the coin available for spending in the chain and also see that
there are no double spends.

This could actually go on forever with no ambiguity over who owns
what, but the out of band proofs that you have to give people when you
spend coins would grow with the history of the coins.

Since there wouldn't be much privacy once a transaction was
sufficiently split up in any case, you instead just publish the
unblindings once transactions are sufficiently buried. Thus bounding
the growth of the proofs.   The reason I say I need to internalize
this more is mostly that I need to think about attacks on the
publication for 'tained' transactions being more or less isomorphic
to just refusing to allow spending of the 'tainted' coins in any case.



  reply	other threads:[~2013-05-16  2:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-05-14 11:51 [Bitcoin-development] ecash and revocability Adam Back
2013-05-14 14:09 ` [Bitcoin-development] bitcoin taint & unilateral revocability (Re: ecash and revocability) Adam Back
2013-05-14 14:27   ` Simon Barber
2013-05-14 17:30   ` grarpamp
2013-05-15 10:25   ` [Bitcoin-development] blind symmetric commitment for stronger byzantine voting resilience (Re: bitcoin taint & unilateral revocability) Adam Back
2013-05-15 11:19     ` Peter Todd
2013-05-15 11:49       ` Adam Back
2013-05-15 12:40         ` Caleb James DeLisle
2013-05-15 16:21           ` Adam Back
2013-05-15 18:01             ` Caleb James DeLisle
2013-05-15 23:40             ` Adam Back
2013-05-16  1:24               ` Gavin
2013-05-16  1:39                 ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-05-16  2:22                   ` Mike Hearn
2013-05-16  2:45                     ` Gregory Maxwell [this message]
2013-05-16  5:52                       ` Caleb James DeLisle
2013-05-16 11:32                       ` Adam Back
2013-05-16 14:51                         ` Adam Back

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAAS2fgQQk0Lhmon4FxK7NATDVkaY13DBmJgQk4riJLE1h_Ak0w@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=gmaxwell@gmail.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=mike@plan99.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox