📅 Original date posted:2014-01-18
📝 Original message:Like any other mechanism that puts extra data in the blockchain, the
sender pays the fees.
This mechanism is to improve privacy for static addresses (donation
links on websites and so on). I personally don't think it will be used
nearly as much as BIP0032 or the payment protocol (both of which don't
need on-blockchain data), precisely because it increases the fees
required to send funds, but this doesn't externalize costs anymore
than any other use of the blockchain does.
People who don't care about privacy and want smallest cost and maximum
convenience already use SPV nodes. Their resource usage will not be
affected in the least.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Troy Benjegerdes <hozer at hozed.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Christophe Biocca [ARCHIVE] /
npub1mt…9g5zm
2023-06-07 15:11:58
in reply to nevent1q…v9w4
Author Public Key
npub1mtxs7jztn027d9cylej99hltqq9vq84uxm80zl4naxafd9hpxqwsj9g5zmPublished at
2023-06-07 15:11:58Event JSON
{
"id": "2cc58623a086b3f636a417a6baf7e456d800b8ea3301e1b487f18c5bbc151ef0",
"pubkey": "dacd0f484b9bd5e69704fe6452dfeb000ac01ebc36cef17eb3e9ba9696e1301d",
"created_at": 1686150718,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"eca224fd79062c438f672eeb721d19eecb21242447f685d7841ab4222dcc04f4",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1b7ccef72aba088b0d945cd10456fbe5424be243aaec08808a7eb538e42a109a",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"de834b230daa8e6d04c44e51929c52dfdc36dc2f4105a0b67060d9dfc30d6ccc"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-01-18\n📝 Original message:Like any other mechanism that puts extra data in the blockchain, the\nsender pays the fees.\n\nThis mechanism is to improve privacy for static addresses (donation\nlinks on websites and so on). I personally don't think it will be used\nnearly as much as BIP0032 or the payment protocol (both of which don't\nneed on-blockchain data), precisely because it increases the fees\nrequired to send funds, but this doesn't externalize costs anymore\nthan any other use of the blockchain does.\n\nPeople who don't care about privacy and want smallest cost and maximum\nconvenience already use SPV nodes. Their resource usage will not be\naffected in the least.\n\nOn Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Troy Benjegerdes \u003chozer at hozed.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 05:32:31PM -0800, Gregory Maxwell wrote:\n\u003e\u003e On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Jeremy Spilman \u003cjeremy at taplink.co\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e Choosing how many bits to put in the prefix may be difficult, particularly\n\u003e\u003e \u003e if transaction load changes dramatically over time. 0 or 1 bits may be\n\u003e\u003e \u003e just fine for a single user running their own node, whereas a central\n\u003e\u003e \u003e service might want 4 or 5 bits to keep their computation costs scalable.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Ignoring prefixes the cost for each reusable address is only a small\n\u003e\u003e percentage of the full node cost (rational: each transaction has one\n\u003e\u003e or more ECDSA signatures, and the derivation is no more expensive), so\n\u003e\u003e I would only expect computation to be an issue for large centralized\n\u003e\u003e services. (non-full nodes suffer more from just the bandwidth impact).\n\u003e\n\u003e I have not seen anyone address my high-level question to (somewhat) complicated\n\u003e mechanisms to keep coin flows private.\n\u003e\n\u003e Who pays for it? From what I see it's going to double the amount of data\n\u003e needed per address, further centralizing 'full' nodes. I'm fine if the NSA\n\u003e is paying for privacy (I actually trust them more than banks and advertisers),\n\u003e but let's just be honest, okay?\n\u003e\n\u003e If socializing the cost of privacy is Bitcoin's goal, and giving the benefits\n\u003e to a few that understand it and/or have the resources to determine privacy\n\u003e providers that won't scam them, then say so, so I can get on with launching\n\u003e a 'transparencycoin' with a modified code that explicitly ALWAYS re-uses\n\u003e addresses, and has miners and pools that charge more for addresses they have\n\u003e never seen before. I bet it will be more distributed and have about half the\n\u003e average transaction cost of Bitcoin, because most people *just don't care*\n\u003e about privacy if they get cheap and/or free services.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e -- Troy, transparency advocate who is quite transparent that if you buy me\n\u003e farmland, I'll shut up about transparency, because I'll be too busy growing\n\u003e food and giving part of it away.\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.\n\u003e Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For\n\u003e Critical Workloads, Development Environments \u0026 Everything In Between.\n\u003e Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.\n\u003e http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431\u0026iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development",
"sig": "953b149107dd849d836fb4f9358f22ced74d52e3d80b54544f93d4c5814933b018263eb2eeed1aac4e29f03c6431a5c7d4f706495cb45164de7b7554b1c60f26"
}