From: James MacWhyte <keatonatron@gmail•com>
To: rhavar@protonmail•com
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] bustapay BIP :: a practical sender/receiver coinjoin protocol
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 18:06:30 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAH+Axy68O76GjjKtdzwOQBS0bQauoPXJEYnrztSfYzVNDSbcNw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <MN5bgFMThBJ_6HiuX-aC9lAp7ainm0vhzOFMYefU-Z2QI26RUE7EmW0xTgvnxArriD-lQUTaB_wBZyKga1po6hquh1fVH5N_5wuLVIEIBfQ=@protonmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1224 bytes --]
James
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 2:11 PM <rhavar@protonmail•com> wrote:
>
> It isn't passed "back and forth so many times".
>
You are right, I got the wrong impression the first time I read it.
> This is an important anti-DoS/anti-spy tactic, as it proves the sender
> actually owns those inputs and if the protocol is not followed to
> completion, the transaction can be dumped on the network.
>
I'm not convinced this is a valid concern, at least not valid enough to add
extra complications to the process. The sender could still refuse to sign
the final transaction after they see the recipient's in-/outputs; "show me
yours and I'll show you mine" isn't much of a spy deterrent, and nothing
here prevents a DOS attack.
As an implementor, I would suggest keeping the protocol as simple as
possible. By dropping the signing in the first step, the recipient doesn't
need to maintain the ability to lookup and verify unspent outputs. It also
would enforce the increased privacy, which the sender obviously wants if
they are going down this path (in other words, either have the process
complete or fail -- don't give the recipient the ability to broadcast the
not-private transaction against the wishes of the sender).
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1924 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-30 2:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-08-30 20:24 rhavar
2018-09-10 12:30 ` Sjors Provoost
2018-09-10 15:49 ` rhavar
2019-01-25 14:47 ` Adam Gibson
2019-01-27 7:36 ` rhavar
2019-01-27 12:20 ` Adam Gibson
2019-01-27 19:24 ` rhavar
2019-01-27 19:42 ` James MacWhyte
2019-01-27 22:11 ` rhavar
2019-01-30 2:06 ` James MacWhyte [this message]
2019-01-30 2:46 ` rhavar
2019-01-30 20:58 ` James MacWhyte
2019-01-28 4:14 ` ZmnSCPxj
2019-01-28 13:19 ` Adam Gibson
2019-01-30 8:34 ` ZmnSCPxj
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAH+Axy68O76GjjKtdzwOQBS0bQauoPXJEYnrztSfYzVNDSbcNw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=keatonatron@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=rhavar@protonmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox