Does CoinJoin have anything to do with address reuse then?
No, nothing at all. Completely orthogonal issues.
Topic: CoinJoin: Bitcoin privacy for the real world - page 27. (Read 294649 times)
No, nothing at all. Completely orthogonal issues.
Already donated.
Awesome. Thanks for the information. That seems like a great idea putting that on the miners.
I have another question, I've asked this before but I don't quite understand why it wouldn't work. Couldn't the protocol be changed so that once an address is spent, it also becomes invalid? ... What am I missing? Wouldn't this work?
I have another question, I've asked this before but I don't quite understand why it wouldn't work. Couldn't the protocol be changed so that once an address is spent, it also becomes invalid? ... What am I missing? Wouldn't this work?
The place for this is in wallet software, not the protocol.
There should still be freedom of choice where someone who loves their vanity address more than their privacy can still use it (send from it) as long as they like.
Awesome. Thanks for the information. That seems like a great idea putting that on the miners.
I have another question, I've asked this before but I don't quite understand why it wouldn't work. Couldn't the protocol be changed so that once an address is spent, it also becomes invalid? That way someone couldn't use an address to pay for something more than once, but he could still receive any number of incoming transactions to it before he decides to spend it. Transactions going to an invalid address would just not be accepted by miners and thus bounced back. This would mean that any attempts to whitelist addresses would be moot because an address disappears after use. What am I missing? Wouldn't this work?
I have another question, I've asked this before but I don't quite understand why it wouldn't work. Couldn't the protocol be changed so that once an address is spent, it also becomes invalid? That way someone couldn't use an address to pay for something more than once, but he could still receive any number of incoming transactions to it before he decides to spend it. Transactions going to an invalid address would just not be accepted by miners and thus bounced back. This would mean that any attempts to whitelist addresses would be moot because an address disappears after use. What am I missing? Wouldn't this work?
In what way is it being discouraged? Is it anything beyond informing people that it's bad practice? I'd like to see some anti-address-reuse measure become baseline, maybe even in the protocol itself if possible. Does CoinJoin have anything to do with address reuse then?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/miners-time-to-deprioritisefilter-address-reuse-334316
This might be a premature decision, and only is effective per block, but hopefully the side-effect is faster adoption of BIP32
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0032
In what way is it being discouraged? Is it anything beyond informing people that it's bad practice? I'd like to see some anti-address-reuse measure become baseline, maybe even in the protocol itself if possible. Does CoinJoin have anything to do with address reuse then?
This does sound great. But I'm not sure I understand how this helps the Blacklist/Whitelist issue. If TPTB still make some kind of Whitelist where merchants are only allowed to accept coins from certain "white" addresses, what does something like CoinJoin offer against that?
Address re-use is being actively discouraged now. Once this becomes the norm then whitelists will be irrelevant.
This does sound great. But I'm not sure I understand how this helps the Blacklist/Whitelist issue. If TPTB still make some kind of Whitelist where merchants are only allowed to accept coins from certain "white" addresses, what does something like CoinJoin offer against that?
Does anyone have any idea why that would be happening?
EDIT: The commenter just posted the Mt Gox error: "This address is not on the right network"
EDIT: The commenter just posted the Mt Gox error: "This address is not on the right network"
Armory and Mt Gox, and all bitcoinj-derived wallets, don't support P2SH addresses yet. Electrum does support P2SH, and so does Bitcoin-QT.
P2SH was added about two years ago - about time wallets upgrade...
Ah ok, so this would basically be useless for any kind of eCommerce, or paying in restaurant with bitcoins etc because they wouldn't know who paid for it. I sincerely hope this would then be an optional way of transferring rather than a replacement right?, otherwise it would pretty much destroy Bitcoin as a means for paying for goods.
No, you have a misunderstanding of how bitcoin works. There is no "from" address. A merchant knows when they've been paid because they receive payment to a one-time-use address they generated specifically for the transaction. The way this would work in CoinJoin is that you pretend that you are mixing X coins, where X is the amount that you are paying the merchant, and then use the key id provided by the merchant for your blinded output.
And yes, this is a PURELY higher-level protocol that makes no changes to how bitcoin currently operates.
Does anyone have any idea why that would be happening?
EDIT: The commenter just posted the Mt Gox error: "This address is not on the right network"
EDIT: The commenter just posted the Mt Gox error: "This address is not on the right network"
Armory and Mt Gox, and all bitcoinj-derived wallets, don't support P2SH addresses yet. Electrum does support P2SH, and so does Bitcoin-QT.
P2SH was added about two years ago - about time wallets upgrade...
Even if you can't afford to donate BTC, anyone who has a reddit account can help out by upvoting and commenting on this fundraising drive I posted:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qmhkh/coinjoin_fundraising_drive/
If we can get this onto the front page of r/bitcoin I think we could get some decent coin.
Also, I'm getting a report of a problem sending coin to the address. I originally tried to use the reddit bitcoin tip bot to send it, but kept getting rejected. I eventually just used Coinbase. Now someone is commenting saying that bitcoin tip bot, Mt. Gox, and even Armory all rejected their attempts to send coin.
Here is the Armory error: "You have entered 1 invalid addresses. The errors have been highlighted on the entry screen."
Does anyone have any idea why that would be happening?
EDIT: The commenter just posted the Mt Gox error: "This address is not on the right network"
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qmhkh/coinjoin_fundraising_drive/
If we can get this onto the front page of r/bitcoin I think we could get some decent coin.
Also, I'm getting a report of a problem sending coin to the address. I originally tried to use the reddit bitcoin tip bot to send it, but kept getting rejected. I eventually just used Coinbase. Now someone is commenting saying that bitcoin tip bot, Mt. Gox, and even Armory all rejected their attempts to send coin.
Here is the Armory error: "You have entered 1 invalid addresses. The errors have been highlighted on the entry screen."
Does anyone have any idea why that would be happening?
EDIT: The commenter just posted the Mt Gox error: "This address is not on the right network"
CoinJoin is like collecting 20 of 100 USD bills into a hat and then passing the hat to another group of 20 people, each one takes its 100 USD bill. Noone knows who gives you which bill.
Ah ok, so this would basically be useless for any kind of eCommerce, or paying in restaurant with bitcoins etc because they wouldn't know who paid for it. I sincerely hope this would then be an optional way of transferring rather than a replacement right?, otherwise it would pretty much destroy Bitcoin as a means for paying for goods.
The merchant doesn't need to know who paid because every time they issue a bill they use a brand new address. Forget address reuse
CoinJoin is like collecting 20 of 100 USD bills into a hat and then passing the hat to another group of 20 people, each one takes its 100 USD bill. Noone knows who gives you which bill.
Ah ok, so this would basically be useless for any kind of eCommerce, or paying in restaurant with bitcoins etc because they wouldn't know who paid for it. I sincerely hope this would then be an optional way of transferring rather than a replacement right?, otherwise it would pretty much destroy Bitcoin as a means for paying for goods.
theymos you rock! here is some more donation for you to generously match 
transaction id: a2ce643656a516784dbb32547408831226b3fc737552377cfd64cc8066fff850
transaction id: a2ce643656a516784dbb32547408831226b3fc737552377cfd64cc8066fff850
CoinJoin is like collecting 20 of 100 USD bills into a hat and then passing the hat to another group of 20 people, each one takes its 100 USD bill. Noone knows who gives you which bill.
Ok so most of this goes way over my head of understanding, so can someone just tell me. Using such a system as this, if I make a payment to an address, does the receiver still see my address as the address the payment came from, or do they receive the correct amount of Bitcoins, but from some other unknown address?
CoinJoin needs to be nicely implemented in Bitcoin-Qt before any of these ridiculous blacklist proposals take off. So for the next 30 days, I will match donations to the CoinJoin bounty fund (3M8XGFBKwkf7miBzpkU3x2DoWwAVrD1mhk), up to a maximum of 5 BTC. Just donate to that address, and in 30 days I'll donate the difference between the current received amount (16.21420773) and the received amount at that time (max 5 BTC).
Cool. 
interesting...
CoinJoin needs to be nicely implemented in Bitcoin-Qt before any of these ridiculous blacklist proposals take off. So for the next 30 days, I will match donations to the CoinJoin bounty fund (3M8XGFBKwkf7miBzpkU3x2DoWwAVrD1mhk), up to a maximum of 5 BTC.
Way to go!
I'm upping my offer from 0.50 to 0.75 but please tell Pieter to sign his pubkey in the second message of this thread.
Thank you!
Jump to: