Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TfYu6-000601-HX for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 16:29:58 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.175; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f175.google.com ([209.85.214.175]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1TfYu2-0003rQ-Jo for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 16:29:58 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f175.google.com with SMTP id vb8so2771888obc.34 for ; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 08:29:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.31.205 with SMTP id c13mr8522681oei.135.1354552189276; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 08:29:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.170.230 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:29:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <80648682-E34A-455E-B34A-6BC24652C3EA@ceptacle.com> <9CEDE4D4-3685-4F70-953E-15CC50A8AA3F@ceptacle.com> <50BCC28A.4060503@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:29:49 -0500 Message-ID: From: Alan Reiner To: Stephen Pair Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f839dbf1252b104cff5425b X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 (etotheipi[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1TfYu2-0003rQ-Jo Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Chain dust mitigation: Demurrage based Chain Vacuuming 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: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 16:29:58 -0000 --e89a8f839dbf1252b104cff5425b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 These are all valid points. I hadn't really thought much about this point until you all just brought it up. The reason I so quickly spout off that phrase, is that I endlessly get requests from Armory users to implement more anonymity-based features. When I say there are bigger priorities, they suggest that "anonymity" is a core benefit of Bitcoin and I should be supporting it. I'm not against anonymity, and I most certainly favor privacy, but my goal was to produce a versatile client, not one focused on any one aspect -- there are plenty of people who use it for other reasons than anonymity. However, I do like Greg's comment about "attacks" against a blind-dust-inclusion algorithm, and suggestion to maintain a clustering of already-linked addresses. That's not terribly difficult to do with the transaction history in hand, and it could increase how often the logic triggers. I suppose these hardcore SD players probably have a lot of one-satoshi outputs that could use vacuuming... On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Stephen Pair wrote: > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: > >> Second thing, it's best to carefully separate "anonymity" from >> "privacy". Privacy is supposed to be a feature of the system (it says >> so in Satoshis paper) because people demand it. If I loan a tenner to >> my friend and he is able to find out what I earned last month, then >> that trade was neither anonymous nor private. In this case I want >> privacy but anonymity isn't useful. Mixing up anonymity with privacy >> is not only a public relations problem, but can lead to confusion from >> users when they, eg, try and buy Bitcoins from an exchange and are >> asked to provide ID proofs. > > > I would like to second this point...privacy is essential because the > market demands it. If Bitcoin doesn't do it well (and I would argue that > it doesn't today), then eventually a competitor to Bitcoin will do it > better and that would be the beginning of the end for Bitcoin. Debates > about whether it was or wasn't a core feature are pointless. > --e89a8f839dbf1252b104cff5425b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable These are all valid points. =A0I hadn't really thought much about this = point until you all just brought it up. =A0The reason I so quickly spout of= f that phrase, is that I endlessly get requests from Armory users to implem= ent more anonymity-based features. =A0When I say there are bigger prioritie= s, they suggest that "anonymity" is a core benefit of Bitcoin and= I should be supporting it. =A0I'm not against anonymity, and I most ce= rtainly favor privacy, but my goal was to produce a versatile client, not o= ne focused on any one aspect -- there are plenty of people who use it for o= ther reasons than anonymity. =A0

However, I do like Greg's comment about "attacks&qu= ot; against a blind-dust-inclusion algorithm, and suggestion to maintain a = clustering of already-linked addresses. =A0That's not terribly difficul= t to do with the transaction history in hand, and it could increase how oft= en the logic triggers. =A0I suppose these hardcore SD players probably have= a lot of one-satoshi outputs that could use vacuuming...




On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Stephen Pair <stephen@b= itpay.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Mike Hearn <mik= e@plan99.net> wrote:
Second thing, it's best to carefully separate "anonymity"= ; from
"privacy". Privacy is supposed to be a feature of the system (it = says
so in Satoshis paper) because people demand it. If I loan a tenner to
my friend and he is able to find out what I earned last month, then
that trade was neither anonymous nor private. In this case I want
privacy but anonymity isn't useful. Mixing up anonymity with privacy is not only a public relations problem, but can lead to confusion from
users when they, eg, try and buy Bitcoins from an exchange and are
asked to provide ID proofs.

I would l= ike to second this point...privacy is essential because the market demands = it. =A0If Bitcoin doesn't do it well (and I would argue that it doesn&#= 39;t today), then eventually a competitor to Bitcoin will do it better and = that would be the beginning of the end for Bitcoin. =A0Debates about whethe= r it was or wasn't a core feature are pointless.

--e89a8f839dbf1252b104cff5425b--