Topic: Satoshi clearly understands the benefits of privacy. Why isn't it in bitcoin? (Read 1305 times)
November 26, 2014, 08:52:35 AM
Why people keep thinking Satoshi is a god ? Limitation of current technology doesn't allow us to have completely blind blockchain without compromising trustless.
November 26, 2014, 07:11:41 AM
Pseudonymous addresses and no address re-use is cool, but it's clearly not good enough for real privacy. If Satoshi could figure out a good-enough solution to the Byzantine Generals' Problem by creating the blockchain, couldn't he figure out coinjoin? It's curious that a person who was obsessed with privacy didn't implement it at the protocol level. Was he in a rush to release bitcoin? Doubtful. Was it above his abilities? Doubtful.
firstly although he wanted to stay anonymous, it was not due to some conspiracy about financial oversight by governments. it was more related to not wanting to get arrested for money creation.
but as we have now become aware that bitcoin is classed as an asset currency and not thing to do with government fiat, his anonimity was less needed than first thought. but now we see thousands of people wanting to search him out as a form of religious icon. i can see why he desires to stay anonymous.
as for why bitcoin doesnt have more anonimity features. well bitcoin itself meant to be a small straightforward way to enpower people and remove control of wealth from corporate entities who have centralised powers. bitcoin is enough to be pseudonominous BUT it has to be for PEOPLE to care about what they do with such features.
basically no code in the world can stop an idiot telling everyone what his address is,.. so its upto the people to protect themselves.
there are other layers that can sit alongside or ontop of bitcoin to help reduce self management and with people relying more on code then their selves. but i believe satoshi cared more about financial freedom and self control, rather than hiding funds away.
and there is no point talking about bitcoin as if satoshi has any say in it anymore. if you dislike it and want bitcoin to have extra facility, you can either make your own, or go to the bitcoin github and submit idea's/code.
November 26, 2014, 07:10:10 AM
As the above user said , Satochi make mistakes , obviously.
but I don't think it does matter , It is much safer then the other payment methods out there .
but I don't think it does matter , It is much safer then the other payment methods out there .
OT: I'm starting to see Satoshi spelt as "Satochi" by several posters lately. Is this some kind of inside thing?
wooops , my bad
November 26, 2014, 07:04:42 AM
He was glad to get it working as it is for sure. He left it for his successors to implement such additional features.
Unfortunately, a change like that may be too radical to make it into the official client now. It's a big debate just to make the blocksize bigger.
November 26, 2014, 06:59:11 AM
He was glad to get it working as it is for sure. He left it for his successors to implement such additional features.
November 26, 2014, 06:19:41 AM
Pseudonymous addresses and no address re-use is cool, but it's clearly not good enough for real privacy.
Believe it or not, Satoshi was human and made plenty of mistakes.
November 26, 2014, 05:58:14 AM
As the above user said , Satochi make mistakes , obviously.
but I don't think it does matter , It is much safer then the other payment methods out there .
but I don't think it does matter , It is much safer then the other payment methods out there .
OT: I'm starting to see Satoshi spelt as "Satochi" by several posters lately. Is this some kind of inside thing?
November 26, 2014, 02:55:29 AM
Pseudonymous addresses and no address re-use is cool, but it's clearly not good enough for real privacy.
Pseudonymity is superior because it gives the user the choice of radical transparency or anonymity. This is a good thing as I want the charities I donate to, to be radically transparent and not automatically perform stealth address functions with conjoin/coin shuffle.
Was it above his abilities? Doubtful.
Believe it or not, Satoshi was human and made plenty of mistakes.
^ This.
And also:
I'm not grasping your idea yet. Does it hide any information from the public network? What is the advantage?
If at least 50% of nodes validated transactions enough that old transactions can be discarded, then everyone saw everything and could keep a record of it.
Can public nodes see the values of transactions? Can they see which previous transaction the value came from? If they can, then they know everything. If they can't, then they couldn't verify that the value came from a valid source, so you couldn't take their generated chain as verification of it.
Does it hide the bitcoin addresses? Is that it? OK, maybe now I see, if that's it.
Crypto may offer a way to do "key blinding". I did some research and it was obscure, but there may be something there. "group signatures" may be related.
There's something here in the general area:
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/crypto/rh/
What we need is a way to generate additional blinded variations of a public key. The blinded variations would have the same properties as the root public key, such that the private key could generate a signature for any one of them. Others could not tell if a blinded key is related to the root key, or other blinded keys from the same root key. These are the properties of blinding. Blinding, in a nutshell, is x = (x * large_random_int) mod m.
When paying to a bitcoin address, you would generate a new blinded key for each use.
Then you need to be able to sign a signature such that you can't tell that two signatures came from the same private key. I'm not sure if always signing a different blinded public key would already give you this property. If not, I think that's where group signatures comes in. With group signatures, it is possible for something to be signed but not know who signed it.
As an example, say some unpopular military attack has to be ordered, but nobody wants to go down in history as the one who ordered it. If 10 leaders have private keys, one of them could sign the order and you wouldn't know who did it.
If at least 50% of nodes validated transactions enough that old transactions can be discarded, then everyone saw everything and could keep a record of it.
Can public nodes see the values of transactions? Can they see which previous transaction the value came from? If they can, then they know everything. If they can't, then they couldn't verify that the value came from a valid source, so you couldn't take their generated chain as verification of it.
Does it hide the bitcoin addresses? Is that it? OK, maybe now I see, if that's it.
Crypto may offer a way to do "key blinding". I did some research and it was obscure, but there may be something there. "group signatures" may be related.
There's something here in the general area:
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/crypto/rh/
What we need is a way to generate additional blinded variations of a public key. The blinded variations would have the same properties as the root public key, such that the private key could generate a signature for any one of them. Others could not tell if a blinded key is related to the root key, or other blinded keys from the same root key. These are the properties of blinding. Blinding, in a nutshell, is x = (x * large_random_int) mod m.
When paying to a bitcoin address, you would generate a new blinded key for each use.
Then you need to be able to sign a signature such that you can't tell that two signatures came from the same private key. I'm not sure if always signing a different blinded public key would already give you this property. If not, I think that's where group signatures comes in. With group signatures, it is possible for something to be signed but not know who signed it.
As an example, say some unpopular military attack has to be ordered, but nobody wants to go down in history as the one who ordered it. If 10 leaders have private keys, one of them could sign the order and you wouldn't know who did it.
So, yes, he was interested in ways to achieve better privacy in bitcoin, but a practical solution for something better than coinjoin was not apparent at the time.
November 26, 2014, 02:01:39 AM
Unless you externally mix your coins, your privacy will inevitably be eroded.
Even the core wallet creates a new public key with every transaction. It is your choice to attach your identities to one or multiple of those addresses or not.
November 26, 2014, 02:01:00 AM
"Satoshi got to have his anonymity, why can't we?"
Repeat it. Repeat it constantly. It pisses off the right people.
Repeat it. Repeat it constantly. It pisses off the right people.
November 26, 2014, 01:45:51 AM
It is private by default. You have to attach you identity to a public address if you want to remove your privacy.
Unless you externally mix your coins, your privacy will inevitably be eroded.
November 26, 2014, 01:40:28 AM
Pseudonymity is superior because it gives the user the choice of radical transparency or anonymity. This is a good thing as I want the charities I donate to, to be radically transparent and not automatically perform stealth address functions with conjoin/coin shuffle.
How about a third option? Make private the default, but give the users the ability to reveal balances or transactions if they want to.
It is private by default. You have to attach you identity to a public address if you want to remove your privacy.
November 26, 2014, 01:36:18 AM
Bitcoin was the first of its kind, it was meant to show the way, not to be the ultimate in technology.
It was an experiment, it wasn't even a given that it would succeed. Getting the network running reliably and getting it to be useful was the priority, not advanced stealth modes.
It was an experiment, it wasn't even a given that it would succeed. Getting the network running reliably and getting it to be useful was the priority, not advanced stealth modes.
November 26, 2014, 01:32:58 AM
Pseudonymity is superior because it gives the user the choice of radical transparency or anonymity. This is a good thing as I want the charities I donate to, to be radically transparent and not automatically perform stealth address functions with conjoin/coin shuffle.
How about a third option? Make private the default, but give the users the ability to reveal balances or transactions if they want to.
global moderator
Activity: 3990
Merit: 2717
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
November 26, 2014, 01:19:14 AM
I don't think he was in a rush, but I don't think bitcoin was ever going to solve everything anyway and he could not be expected to. There are ways to remain anonymous with bitcoin though if you wish.
November 26, 2014, 01:17:29 AM
As the above user said , Satochi make mistakes , obviously.
but I don't think it does matter , It is much safer then the other payment methods out there .
but I don't think it does matter , It is much safer then the other payment methods out there .
November 26, 2014, 01:09:00 AM
Pseudonymous addresses and no address re-use is cool, but it's clearly not good enough for real privacy.
Pseudonymity is superior because it gives the user the choice of radical transparency or anonymity. This is a good thing as I want the charities I donate to, to be radically transparent and not automatically perform stealth address functions with conjoin/coin shuffle.
Was it above his abilities? Doubtful.
Believe it or not, Satoshi was human and made plenty of mistakes.
November 26, 2014, 01:02:17 AM
Pseudonymous addresses and no address re-use is cool, but it's clearly not good enough for real privacy. If Satoshi could figure out a good-enough solution to the Byzantine Generals' Problem by creating the blockchain, couldn't he figure out coinjoin? It's curious that a person who was obsessed with privacy didn't implement it at the protocol level. Was he in a rush to release bitcoin? Doubtful. Was it above his abilities? Doubtful.
Jump to: