📅 Original date posted:2012-12-03
📝 Original message: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 <stephen at bitpay.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Mike Hearn <mike at 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 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20121203/cc823863/attachment.html>;
Alan Reiner [ARCHIVE] /
npub1sm…mnq7h
2023-06-07 10:44:52
in reply to nevent1q…6x8h
Author Public Key
npub1sm6zhjmk5scuz294jmpkw99wwwjzetjgwp4fu4gn6utqgdz87hkqamnq7hPublished at
2023-06-07 10:44:52Event JSON
{
"id": "9a3c62e536c33d25ae5377b45ac1b5d559393c40895c415dbb511b7fb2347f30",
"pubkey": "86f42bcb76a431c128b596c36714ae73a42cae48706a9e5513d716043447f5ec",
"created_at": 1686134692,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"e38e06cde7ee8f4b601cbd5e5a0ad7773352871f0487670ef1ae95a3f05e5aad",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b71c15ec3389147016230fafc939d49a66970f3621e47dbffdb86b32e6bc684f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5570d204bda7735652416863ba13b26e8065a443c269cdcedef82e8107dc93a7"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-12-03\n📝 Original message:These are all valid points. I hadn't really thought much about this point\nuntil you all just brought it up. The reason I so quickly spout off that\nphrase, is that I endlessly get requests from Armory users to implement\nmore anonymity-based features. When I say there are bigger priorities,\nthey suggest that \"anonymity\" is a core benefit of Bitcoin and I should be\nsupporting it. I'm not against anonymity, and I most certainly favor\nprivacy, but my goal was to produce a versatile client, not one focused on\nany one aspect -- there are plenty of people who use it for other reasons\nthan anonymity.\n\nHowever, I do like Greg's comment about \"attacks\" against a\nblind-dust-inclusion algorithm, and suggestion to maintain a clustering of\nalready-linked addresses. That's not terribly difficult to do with the\ntransaction history in hand, and it could increase how often the logic\ntriggers. I suppose these hardcore SD players probably have a lot of\none-satoshi outputs that could use vacuuming...\n\n\n\n\nOn Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Stephen Pair \u003cstephen at bitpay.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Second thing, it's best to carefully separate \"anonymity\" from\n\u003e\u003e \"privacy\". Privacy is supposed to be a feature of the system (it says\n\u003e\u003e so in Satoshis paper) because people demand it. If I loan a tenner to\n\u003e\u003e my friend and he is able to find out what I earned last month, then\n\u003e\u003e that trade was neither anonymous nor private. In this case I want\n\u003e\u003e privacy but anonymity isn't useful. Mixing up anonymity with privacy\n\u003e\u003e is not only a public relations problem, but can lead to confusion from\n\u003e\u003e users when they, eg, try and buy Bitcoins from an exchange and are\n\u003e\u003e asked to provide ID proofs.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e I would like to second this point...privacy is essential because the\n\u003e market demands it. If Bitcoin doesn't do it well (and I would argue that\n\u003e it doesn't today), then eventually a competitor to Bitcoin will do it\n\u003e better and that would be the beginning of the end for Bitcoin. Debates\n\u003e about whether it was or wasn't a core feature are pointless.\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20121203/cc823863/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "53812a7807dc97af840cfbea6aa5e3abcb6e50c39d1e2f52f213c18644cf91cd36f888a0d0a1ba5504e8e55b5c1ed94b74553e857b7ee29f07ca15266f0aea43"
}