It won't. It requires a hard fork and Bitcoin will not hard fork for DarkSend, nor jeopardize regulation issues.
It doesn't require a hardfork if the coinjoin organizers aren't paid by block reward, but instead by those they are coinjoining for. Or better yet, it would be decentralized and no one would be paid at all.
It doesn't require a hardfork if the coinjoin organizers aren't paid by block reward, but instead by those they are coinjoining for. Or better yet, it would be decentralized and no one would be paid at all.
Re: regulation, the Bitcoin foundation is claiming transparency etc etc. If they go the "shady" route, they can't claim the same.
Re: hardfork, how do you provide a dis-incentive for having nodes that map coinjoin transactions in your scenario?
Quote
TL;DR PoR is an oxymoron because you can't construct a proof that you are offering a resource.
If you delay payments for a couple of blocks, can't everyone see who did actually offer a service and pay them? There is no hurry to pay in the same block.
Re: mapping coinjoins, I assume you mean logging which inputs match with which outputs. This doesn't need an anti-incentive to prevent, you can simply make it so it isn't possible to log through the use of blind signatures.
Re: Bitcoin foundation, they aren't involved with this decision. All it takes is one person to implement it and upload the implementation
Re: delaying payments, no, it isn't possible to have consensus that way. You can check yourself, but anyone that's offline will need to trust someone. This means if the party they trust lies, consensus is broken.
