--- Day changed Thu Dec 13 2018 02:04 -!- Sentineo [~Undefined@unaffiliated/sentineo] has quit [Quit: no more] 03:29 -!- Sentineo [~Undefined@unaffiliated/sentineo] has joined #joinmarket 03:32 < belcher> felix34 JM never reuses addresses, so there shouldnt be any addresses in common ever 03:33 < belcher> but there may be links between the addresses due to transactions 03:34 < belcher> i havent considered it in the way of "known plaintext attack", ill think about it 03:43 -!- belcher_ [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 03:43 -!- belcher_ [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #joinmarket 03:52 -!- belcher_ [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 04:22 < felix34> belcher: maybe addresses in common is incorrect, maybe more in the sense of "Tx1 had N inputs and M outputs, which participated in transactions TxN[1-?] and TxM[1-?], and of those transactions, TxM_3 had an output which was an input to Tx2, so TxM_3 was likely also initiated by Alice" 04:33 < belcher> yes, you're talking about the transaction graph 04:34 < belcher> the protection that coinjoin provides is that it is unknown to whom belong the equal-sized outputs by looking at a transaction 04:40 -!- belcher_ [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #joinmarket 04:43 -!- midnightmagic [~midnightm@unaffiliated/midnightmagic] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 04:46 -!- midnightmagic [~midnightm@unaffiliated/midnightmagic] has joined #joinmarket 04:52 -!- midnightmagic [~midnightm@unaffiliated/midnightmagic] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 05:00 -!- midnightmagic [~midnightm@unaffiliated/midnightmagic] has joined #joinmarket 05:56 -!- belcher_ [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 05:56 -!- belcher_ [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #joinmarket 06:02 -!- belcher_ [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 06:05 < waxwing> arubi, ping this one https://github.com/JoinMarket-Org/joinmarket-clientserver/issues/234#issuecomment-446555724 06:05 < waxwing> building release now, would like an update ... if there's no new info, are we OK? 06:09 < felix34> belcher: alright, but consider most exchanges know a) a great many transactions Alice made and b) know who she is. the same is true if Alice regularly pays for goods or services with Bitcoin (the payment processor or vendor or both will be able to link the incoming transactions, probably). it seems unfair to ask Alice to run the tumbler in between her monthly donations to Wikipedia etc 06:09 < felix34> (or monthly payments to her 10 EUR/mo hosting provider, etc) 06:12 < belcher> it is unfair as you say, and expensive in terms of block space 06:14 < belcher> maybe an aid could be coin control, i.e. tumble 120 EUR worth once and only use those coins for paying for hosting, which you could do 12 times (assuming no volatility) 06:14 < belcher> another help would be to avoid exchanges that require all your personal details 06:14 < belcher> its been said that avoiding KYC/AML would do more for privacy than any tech like coinjoin/coinswap/LN/etc 06:17 < waxwing> by me amongst others :) 06:17 < belcher> indeed 06:18 < waxwing> crypto tricks are irrelevant if all you do is move your shitcoins between coinbase and binance :) 06:19 < waxwing> belcher, as per yesterday i'd really like to chase up whether bisq has an amelioration for the optionality of the "maker" (the offer-er), i'm wondering maybe if they lose a deposit. i'll probably forget to find out :) 06:19 < belcher> theres lots of people on the bisq slack, that might be a good place to ask 06:28 -!- belcher_ [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #joinmarket 06:33 -!- belcher_ [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 06:36 < waxwing> re: the dusting attack or tainting attack, it's worth observing that in a way it's outside JM's threat model. 06:36 < waxwing> because we consider every "CMC" (to use my terminology) basically a lost cause, i.e. all those funds are linked 06:37 < waxwing> (=completed mixdepth closure) 06:37 < waxwing> the "completed" is important because of course over the lifetime of a JM wallet you're probably going to empty that more than once. 06:37 < waxwing> and hmm, writing that out makes me realise that obviously the more often you sweep, the better. 06:38 < belcher> one of thinking about it is that having no change address is better 06:38 < waxwing> right, yeah good point that's a clearer way of making the same observation 06:38 < belcher> another option is to fully spend a single utxo without a change address 06:38 < waxwing> yeah you're right. it's more general than what i was saying. isolation could be better than the whole mixdepth, i guess very often it will beh. 06:38 < waxwing> be 06:39 < waxwing> i guess i just preferred the simpler analysis being the most pessimistic case. 06:39 < waxwing> that's the kind of privacy that a non-coinjoin wallet can provide, too. 06:53 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 06:54 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #joinmarket 07:00 -!- belcher_ [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #joinmarket 07:14 < felix34> waxwing: what do you mean by CMC? 07:33 < waxwing> see the next line? 07:33 < waxwing> but the definition is the tumbler-privacy.md document that's on github 07:33 < waxwing> like i said, that's a definition i made up, but the general idea of a closure is i think very well known. see also 'cluster'. 07:36 < nothingmuch> waxwing: have you had a chance to look at that preferred value series writeup? it's pretty related 07:37 < waxwing> oh, you're here :) 07:37 < nothingmuch> quantifying anon set size is still the challenge i'm working on ATM, that bit in the gist is way out of date 07:38 < nothingmuch> OH HAI 07:41 < nothingmuch> i might also be able to answer that bisq question, but i don't understand the scenario 07:43 < felix34> waxwing: do you have a link to that document? 07:44 < nothingmuch> https://github.com/AdamISZ/JMPrivacyAnalysis/blob/master/tumbler_privacy.md 07:47 < belcher> nothingmuch the scenario is that the bisq maker creates an offer and a taker fills it, but the maker has around 24 hours to reply, so provides a big optionality (for example if the price moved in a way that the maker didnt like they might not go ahead with the trade), so we were wondering if theres any penalty for the maker just backing out of a trade 07:47 < felix34> nothingmuch: thanks! 07:50 < nothingmuch> belcher: is maker selling or buying btc in this case? sounds like the latter, in which case "reply" means after the client confirms, they need to send e.g. bank transfer or whatever? 07:50 < nothingmuch> if so, then there would be a penalty, the funds + deposit are in a 2-of-3, the taker can dispute, and the arbitrator should award to the taker, perhaps refunding the offered amount to the maker 07:50 < belcher> yes reply means to continue doing the trade 07:51 < belcher> i see so there is a penalty 07:56 < waxwing> nobody tested anything except Python 3.5 and 3.6, am I right about that? 07:56 < waxwing> nothingmuch, but is the penalty the whole thing? 07:56 < waxwing> oh the deposit. i should read up how much it is. 07:56 < waxwing> still, that's about as good as it could realistically be. 07:58 < nothingmuch> waxwing: the maker can set any deposit, with some reccomendations in the UI, and this is displayed to the taker 07:58 < waxwing> gotcha, thanks 07:58 < nothingmuch> and i screwed up the logic above - if maker is offering to buy btc obviously they wouldn't get the offered amount ;-) 08:36 < waxwing> Interested in feedback on the change I made to the README in this PR: https://github.com/JoinMarket-Org/joinmarket-clientserver/pull/251 08:36 < waxwing> i basically shilled the JM wallet a bit :) 08:37 < waxwing> (btw i have no idea why github bot ignores my PRs) 08:51 < belcher> i heard they're discontinuing that bot? do other people's PRs get announced 08:52 < belcher> i read that PR and it looks nice to me 08:54 < waxwing> belcher, hmm yeah i vaguely remember reading that. but it might be different, it happened a few days ago with my PR and then someone else's showed up, i suspect it might be because i'm opening a PR from a branch on the same repo. 08:54 < waxwing> it's not important. 08:55 < belcher> maybe add the donation address to README? a sentence like "to help support the project donate to " 08:56 < qubenix> +1 ^ 09:02 < belcher> theres also the bech32 donation address, for people who want/are able to use that 09:13 < waxwing> belcher, ok cool. i actually don't know what that one is. is it attached to your ID in an obvious place? 09:14 < belcher> they're on joinmarket-org/joinmarket 09:15 < belcher> oh only one of them is on the README 09:15 < belcher> both are on the wiki 09:15 < belcher> they are bc1q5x02zqj5nshw0yhx2s4tj75z6vkvuvww26jak5 (non-bech32 address: 1AZgQZWYRteh6UyF87hwuvyWj73NvWKpL) 09:15 < waxwing> right. wiki's not the best place for it tho' :) 09:15 < belcher> they could do with being signed 09:16 < belcher> thats true for the readme as well i guess 09:17 < waxwing> if you just push a commit with your gpg signature that'd be easy and secure enough imo 09:19 < belcher> sounds good 10:20 -!- Giszmo [~leo@190.162.241.129] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 10:39 -!- Giszmo [~leo@190.162.241.129] has joined #joinmarket 15:08 -!- Giszmo [~leo@190.162.241.129] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 15:22 -!- Giszmo [~leo@ip-154-236-219-201.nextelmovil.cl] has joined #joinmarket 15:38 -!- Giszmo [~leo@ip-154-236-219-201.nextelmovil.cl] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 15:59 -!- Giszmo [~leo@190.162.241.129] has joined #joinmarket 17:25 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 17:39 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined #joinmarket 17:46 -!- AgoraRelay [~jmrelayfn@p5DE4AAAB.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 17:58 -!- AgoraRelay [~jmrelayfn@p5DE4A91B.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #joinmarket 18:12 -!- Giszmo [~leo@190.162.241.129] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 18:30 -!- Giszmo [~leo@ip-125-234-219-201.nextelmovil.cl] has joined #joinmarket 20:22 -!- pigeons [~pigeons@androzani.sysevolve.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 20:30 -!- pigeons [~pigeons@androzani.sysevolve.com] has joined #joinmarket 20:31 -!- pigeons is now known as Guest5081 20:32 -!- Giszmo [~leo@ip-125-234-219-201.nextelmovil.cl] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 22:28 -!- nothingmuch [~user@62.102.148.162] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]