Topic: Miners: Time to deprioritise/filter address reuse! - page 4. (Read 51830 times)

That is called freedom.  Freedom doesn't mean people always doing what you WANT them to do, thats easy. In fact it often means people doing something you disagree with, freedom of speech means someone having the freedom to say things you might find hurtful or offensive.

Yes freedom can be scary.  Freedom can mean you are inconvenienced.  Freedom can make you question if your choice is worth it.

So once again why are you so afraid of freedom?

Also "I" am not doing anything. At the time of the writing I am not mining (although may in the future) and I didn't right the patch.  I just happen to agree with it.

The clear purpose of this is to dissuade people from reusing addresses, you wouldn't disagree with that?
While I still have the option, you are making it a poorer option than it was before, for political reasons.

People wanting anonymity can reuse addresses. No need to force anything down people's throats.

They aren't. You are free to continue to reuse addresses.   Freedom of choice means a CHOICE.   It doesn't mean other people have to support your choice if they disagree with it.   Nobody is forcing you to change how you operate.  Miners have always had the right to prioritize tx.  After every block SOME tx are not included.  The patch simply changes which tx have priority, nothing more.

Why are you (those proposing this) so afraid of my freedom to reuse an address?

You can do this in one transaction, one block, one fee.

There is no "personal gain".  A tx with 10 inputs from the same address is no larger or smaller than a tx with 10 inputs from 10 unique addresses.  So please (I honestly mean it) spend some time learning about how Bitcoin works before you start throwing around FUD.

Miners have ALWAYS had the power to prioritize tx as they see fit.  Always, back to the genesis block.  If you are realizing this for the first time well that is kinda sad.  If Luke never published the patch his pool would still be able to internally prioritize tx as they see fit.  Why are you so afraid of freedom?

here he goes meandering the subject offtopic.
learn "sweeping"

instead of me just receiving 100 TX's where customers pay no fee individually. i have to make a transaction that groups all of those together to bring them into an address i want. EG a project address, or a cold store paper wallet public key.

and im not going to send each transaction individually to avoid fee's especially knowing the second TX will have to wait for the next block and the 3rd will wait for the block after that. and so on for 100 blocks thanks to luke JR protocol causing a 16 hour delay atleast.

and if you look on the main bitcointalk thread you will see many people complain about lengthy delays just to get their coin accepted into a block.

this is much like banks.. ruining a good financial system for personal gain. the financial system protocol should not be used to cause miners to gain more profit or be in favour of them. it should be a unbiased system.

a comparitive would be banks only wanting to deal with people with 20 credit cards and willing to accept high interest on those cards.

security of the network and making peoples financial freedoms easier to manage should be top priority. not mining pool owners 'cut' of the pie bigger by forcing people to transact differently or pay the consequence

Please learn how Bitcoin works.  The number of addresses used as inputs in a tx is irrelevant to the tx size.   Each INPUT (same address or different) uses ~150 bytes.  10 inputs from the same address = ~1.5KB.  10 inputs from 10 addresses = ~1.5KB.


Ok you don't want it.  Then mine blocks and don't apply the patch.  Problem solved.   You didn't ever think you were able to force miners to include your tx in a block did you?  The patch doesn't give miners some brand new novel power/authority.


And miners are free to prioritize transactions how they see fit.  Isn't freedom great.

i have a number of addresses but i have it organised so that each address is a ledger for a particular project

i do not want to have to set up a new address with a regular customer everytime they pay me.
EG. BTC-E or BITSTAMP customers do not want to forced into keep looking for a new deposit address everytime they want to deposit into their account. they prefer the option to refresh address or continue using original address linked to their username.

i do not then want to have balances split over hundreds of addresses which would add KBytes of data to the next tx i send, meaning higher fee's for pool owners to take .. hmmm i might have hit a spot here where a pool owner would love this as a selfish reason to make them more money at the expense of user convenience.

i do not want delays when topping up my cold store address (paper wallet)


i do not want to wait 10 hours because in the last 30 seconds only 60 people out of millions are also re-using addresses
i do not want to wait 3 hours because in the last 30 seconds only 18 people out of millions are also re-using addresses

i want to wait just 10 minutes because millions of people are able to do with their own funds the way they want.

If you mean this mining patch, they support this already, even though the client running the patch is different to the standard wallets available today (so this is not even a soft fork, to put it another way)

If you're talking about the key-chains/BIP32, I think the plan is to include that feature in the forthcoming 0.9 Qt/bitcoind client.

This patch only seems to affect donations and webmerchants that re-use addresses right now, and the former could route around it right now by adding a bit of Bitcoin RPC code into their webshop coding. I don't think the days of using this method are over, and it's actually a better method for privacy. Anyone with a copy of a BIP32 keychain can see how much money has been paid to that keychain (but you can create as many keychains as you like, just like with regular public keys now). So if you've got a an always-on server on the web, and are using a webpage (i.e. that you run or have permission to insert the appropriate code into) to request bitcoin for whatever reason, you can use the tried and trusted (and private on a per-payee basis) way to take payments or donations.

From what I can tell the code needed to do this is available.  See here:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3598018

If you want to lead from the front, wouldn't a better approach be to develop the website frontend for supporting multiple addresses, and offer that up to other sites to reuse, at the same time as putting in the 'de-prioritisation'? At the moment you've introduced a problem, but not the solution.

Use mix service for that purpose. Rely on everyone changing address every time is always risky and will only give you false sense of safety.

Of course coins are coins, but when the men in black show up at your door and start asking you about tx between you and other addresses as they try to id people, then you shall realize why not all coins are equal :p

That is why the real solution to fungibility is making all coins dirty.  They do not have time to question millions of people.

That is how assymetric warfare works boys :p

Do the wallets support this (when will they)?

Read my new signature.  It is my personal summary of the situation.

It's not as true when the difficulty was not as high as now and increased as quickly as now. In the early days, it was much easier to create a new pool and get enough miners to join to survive. Now may I ask a simple question to you? How many hash rate do you have to get before anyone will be interested in joining the new pool you created? This situation becomes worse and worse every time the difficulty increases.

Why should I troll when my benefit lies on the appreciation of the BTC? I am just worrying. One of the main reasons why people love BTC is  that they think BTC is democratic and nobody can damage it since it is protected by millions of users. Call me stupid if you want cause I feel quite unconformable now when I realized just 3 to 5 persons (the operators of BTCGuild, GHash, Eligius, BitMinter, and Slush) can effectively damage the who ecosystem.

Yes, this time this patch may be not so harmful and you happen to side with the OP. But eventually you may disagree on other more serious issues. Considering it more before calling others FUD or stupid. Problems have to be warned by some FUDers before they can be fixed, because the Lovers are often too blind to find them.

Finally maybe off topic, a proposal to OP, as I believe he really cares about the future of BTC. Could you please also considering a patch that restricts the market share of one pool. I think that is at least as important as your current patch. Maybe we could open a new topic on that?

EDIT: create a new topic here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3618577

What exactly is this? I newish, sorry.

On a related note, that's what I tried to express here: http://bitcoinism.blogspot.com/2013/11/eli5-bitcoin.html