📅 Original date posted:2014-01-18
📝 Original message:On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 05:32:31PM -0800, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Jeremy Spilman <jeremy at taplink.co> wrote:
> > Choosing how many bits to put in the prefix may be difficult, particularly
> > if transaction load changes dramatically over time. 0 or 1 bits may be
> > just fine for a single user running their own node, whereas a central
> > service might want 4 or 5 bits to keep their computation costs scalable.
>
> Ignoring prefixes the cost for each reusable address is only a small
> percentage of the full node cost (rational: each transaction has one
> or more ECDSA signatures, and the derivation is no more expensive), so
> I would only expect computation to be an issue for large centralized
> services. (non-full nodes suffer more from just the bandwidth impact).
I have not seen anyone address my high-level question to (somewhat) complicated
mechanisms to keep coin flows private.
Who pays for it? From what I see it's going to double the amount of data
needed per address, further centralizing 'full' nodes. I'm fine if the NSA
is paying for privacy (I actually trust them more than banks and advertisers),
but let's just be honest, okay?
If socializing the cost of privacy is Bitcoin's goal, and giving the benefits
to a few that understand it and/or have the resources to determine privacy
providers that won't scam them, then say so, so I can get on with launching
a 'transparencycoin' with a modified code that explicitly ALWAYS re-uses
addresses, and has miners and pools that charge more for addresses they have
never seen before. I bet it will be more distributed and have about half the
average transaction cost of Bitcoin, because most people *just don't care*
about privacy if they get cheap and/or free services.
-- Troy, transparency advocate who is quite transparent that if you buy me
farmland, I'll shut up about transparency, because I'll be too busy growing
food and giving part of it away.
Troy Benjegerdes [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m6…rdjn5
2023-06-07 15:11:58
in reply to nevent1q…kdza
Author Public Key
npub1m6p5kgcd428x6pxyfege98zjmlwrdhp0gyz6pdnsvrvalscddnxqurdjn5Seen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 15:11:58Event JSON
{
"id": "1b7ccef72aba088b0d945cd10456fbe5424be243aaec08808a7eb538e42a109a",
"pubkey": "de834b230daa8e6d04c44e51929c52dfdc36dc2f4105a0b67060d9dfc30d6ccc",
"created_at": 1686150718,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"eca224fd79062c438f672eeb721d19eecb21242447f685d7841ab4222dcc04f4",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"bf5f464d949a4aa1296c2580ac2a1ffa323113fbe39cbdf2f5d1cf40a3def6b5",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-01-18\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 05:32:31PM -0800, Gregory Maxwell wrote:\n\u003e On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Jeremy Spilman \u003cjeremy at taplink.co\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Choosing how many bits to put in the prefix may be difficult, particularly\n\u003e \u003e if transaction load changes dramatically over time. 0 or 1 bits may be\n\u003e \u003e just fine for a single user running their own node, whereas a central\n\u003e \u003e service might want 4 or 5 bits to keep their computation costs scalable.\n\u003e \n\u003e Ignoring prefixes the cost for each reusable address is only a small\n\u003e percentage of the full node cost (rational: each transaction has one\n\u003e or more ECDSA signatures, and the derivation is no more expensive), so\n\u003e I would only expect computation to be an issue for large centralized\n\u003e services. (non-full nodes suffer more from just the bandwidth impact).\n\nI have not seen anyone address my high-level question to (somewhat) complicated\nmechanisms to keep coin flows private.\n\nWho pays for it? From what I see it's going to double the amount of data \nneeded per address, further centralizing 'full' nodes. I'm fine if the NSA\nis paying for privacy (I actually trust them more than banks and advertisers),\nbut let's just be honest, okay?\n\nIf socializing the cost of privacy is Bitcoin's goal, and giving the benefits\nto a few that understand it and/or have the resources to determine privacy\nproviders that won't scam them, then say so, so I can get on with launching\na 'transparencycoin' with a modified code that explicitly ALWAYS re-uses\naddresses, and has miners and pools that charge more for addresses they have\nnever seen before. I bet it will be more distributed and have about half the\naverage transaction cost of Bitcoin, because most people *just don't care*\nabout privacy if they get cheap and/or free services.\n\n\n-- Troy, transparency advocate who is quite transparent that if you buy me\nfarmland, I'll shut up about transparency, because I'll be too busy growing\nfood and giving part of it away.",
"sig": "7004f738b94e44dfedd32c55c3d90599f4037593427a3e7c3650a6b8cdf8ff0a8bc90c05097c83bd250607489caf4c80b3b33031c3e5d57dde663c9d5331f5fe"
}