Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Redefine packages to discourage address reuse

From: /dev /fd0 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 20:38:22 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Abubakar,

> I don't think it's good for a node to reject an incentive compatible 
transaction in a package because it reuses an address. I believe miners 
won't.

The transactions are not rejected. They will continue to work as they did 
before packages existed. It is incentive compatible and does not reduce 
miner revenue.

> Other disadvantage of this is that it will affect compact block 
reconstruction, nodes fee estimation.

It wont.

> Wouldn't it be better to encourage using other safe mitigations of 
address reuse like silent payments?

Silent payments are used for reusable payment codes that help in creating 
multiple addresses. Its not a protocol change that discourages address 
reuse on-chain. 

/dev/fd0
floppy disk guy

On Monday, October 21, 2024 at 9:09:35 PM UTC+5:30 Abubakar Ismail wrote:

> Hi Floppy
>
> > however packages could be redefined to avoid address >re-use in package 
> transactions.
>
> What type of redefinition are you talking about here, is this not policy 
> rule still.
>
> I don't think it's good for a node to reject an incentive compatible 
> transaction in a package because it reuses an address. I believe miners 
> won't.
>
> > The only downside that I could think of is the scanning time required to 
> check address reuse. Maybe others could suggest solutions for this problem 
> or we can limit the address reuse check only for the chain of transactions.
>
> Other disadvantage of this is that it will affect compact block 
> reconstruction, nodes fee estimation.
>
>
> Wouldn't it be better to encourage using other safe mitigations of address 
> reuse like silent payments?
>
> Abubakar
>
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2024, 8:01 AM /dev /fd0 <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Bitcoin Developers,
>>
>> Address re-use is bad for privacy and such transactions affect everyone 
>> involved. A mempool policy to reject such transactions will be useless, 
>> however packages could be redefined to avoid address re-use in package 
>> transactions.
>>
>> BIP 331 defines packages as a list of unconfirmed transactions, 
>> representable by a connected Directed Acyclic Graph (a directed edge exists 
>> between a transaction that spends the output of another transaction). With 
>> the new definition, transactions with address reuse cannot be a part of 
>> package relayed by nodes with SENDPACKAGES P2P message.
>>
>> The only downside that I could think of is the scanning time required to 
>> check address reuse. Maybe others could suggest solutions for this problem 
>> or we can limit the address reuse check only for the chain of transactions.
>>
>> I am not sure if BIP author would agree with this change and a new BIP 
>> wont make a difference if its not implemented in bitcoin core.
>>
>> /dev/fd0
>> floppy disk guy
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to [email-masked].
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/b383aad2-1abc-4b82-9851-1750b1b52f12n%40googlegroups.com 
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/b383aad2-1abc-4b82-9851-1750b1b52f12n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email-masked].
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/6eac324c-27a3-457c-a9ea-a8e3c0d18887n%40googlegroups.com.