Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] unlinakble static address? & spv-privacy (Re: Stealth Addresses)

From: Troy Benjegerdes <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 11:44:52 -0600

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 05:32:31PM -0800, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Jeremy Spilman <[email-masked]> 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.