Will the Stealth BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal) ever be done?

QuestionAuthority

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1393

You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

Quote from: ABISprotocol on February 21, 2016, 09:17:28 PM

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on February 19, 2016, 07:21:14 PM

So ABISprotocol is the new name for DeathNTaxes.

I don't know who DeathNTaxes is (if that is, or was, actually a bitcointalk user). I'm not here all the time. If it was, I'm not the reincarnation of whoever that was.

The emphasis of my posts (in the latter part of this thread) is that there is a simple process that you can go through if you

(a) have an inquiry about BIP 63 status or when it might be written, or
(b) want to contribute (though I think the funds available for it are ample if I'm not mistaken)

either way, then..

Just contact evoskuil (the evoskuil on github) as I mentioned in my prior comment. It's not hard. His PGP is shown on his Github page.
In case reminder is needed for why evoskuil is the right person to contact, please see:
https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1129#issuecomment-155680014

A preliminary version of BIP 63 is here: https://github.com/genjix/bips/blob/master/bip-stealth.mediawiki

More historical details can be seen earlier in the thread.

Cheers

When I first responded to this thread DnT was the OP.

ABISprotocol

sr. member

Activity: 278

Merit: 252

ABISprotocol on Gist

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on February 19, 2016, 07:21:14 PM

So ABISprotocol is the new name for DeathNTaxes.

I don't know who DeathNTaxes is (if that is, or was, actually a bitcointalk user). I'm not here all the time. If it was, I'm not the reincarnation of whoever that was.

The emphasis of my posts (in the latter part of this thread) is that there is a simple process that you can go through if you

(a) have an inquiry about BIP 63 status or when it might be written, or
(b) want to contribute (though I think the funds available for it are ample if I'm not mistaken)

either way, then..

Just contact evoskuil (the evoskuil on github) as I mentioned in my prior comment. It's not hard. His PGP is shown on his Github page.
In case reminder is needed for why evoskuil is the right person to contact, please see:
https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1129#issuecomment-155680014

A preliminary version of BIP 63 is here: https://github.com/genjix/bips/blob/master/bip-stealth.mediawiki

More historical details can be seen earlier in the thread.

Cheers

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on February 19, 2016, 07:21:14 PM

So ABISprotocol is the new name for DeathNTaxes.

I should get a new name. People don't seem to respond well to this one. Undecided

QuestionAuthority

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1393

You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

So ABISprotocol is the new name for DeathNTaxes.

ABISprotocol

sr. member

Activity: 278

Merit: 252

ABISprotocol on Gist

Quote from: Jet Cash on February 18, 2016, 12:38:24 AM

The timing of anything to do with Bitcoin that includes the word "stealth", seems most unfortunate at the moment.

When has it ever been fortunate or convenient? Two words.

NEH

(&)

VAH

This is why those who actually do anything about it should be supported.

Meanwhile if someone would like to contact evoskuil (see my above comment) on this, that would be great. Thank you.

Jet Cash

legendary

Activity: 2814

Merit: 2472

https://JetCash.com

The timing of anything to do with Bitcoin that includes the word "stealth", seems most unfortunate at the moment.

ABISprotocol

sr. member

Activity: 278

Merit: 252

ABISprotocol on Gist

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 17, 2016, 08:53:36 PM

The funding situation has changed since Peter last spoke. Friendly bump?

Suggest that someone connect with evoskuil due to that he has indicated in the recent past that he has BIP 63 on his todo list -- his PGP details are at https://github.com/evoskuil

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

The funding situation has changed since Peter last spoke. Friendly bump?

ABISprotocol

sr. member

Activity: 278

Merit: 252

ABISprotocol on Gist

Brief update / additional info:

See https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1129#issuecomment-155680014

ABISprotocol

sr. member

Activity: 278

Merit: 252

ABISprotocol on Gist

Quote from: BitUsher on June 22, 2015, 09:57:08 AM

Quote from: ABISprotocol on June 22, 2015, 05:26:54 AM

I'll post a link to this portion of the discussion to Unsystem mailing list with cc to Amir with a request for a reply from Amir back to this forum.

Thanks, looks like there is already a post made by someone on the unsystem forum found here-

https://forum.unsystem.net/t/finishing-bip-63-stealth-addresses/546

No responses in 4 days....

but if you can email Amir and show him the links it would be better.

Done

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: ABISprotocol on June 22, 2015, 05:26:54 AM

I'll post a link to this portion of the discussion to Unsystem mailing list with cc to Amir with a request for a reply from Amir back to this forum.

Thanks, looks like there is already a post made by someone on the unsystem forum found here-

https://forum.unsystem.net/t/finishing-bip-63-stealth-addresses/546

No responses in 4 days....

but if you can email Amir and show him the links it would be better.

ABISprotocol

sr. member

Activity: 278

Merit: 252

ABISprotocol on Gist

Quote from: BitUsher on June 18, 2015, 09:22:14 AM

Quote from: Nicolas Dorier on June 18, 2015, 06:59:17 AM

Well, if it blocks adoption, in this case it should be finalized. Genjix started working on that on https://github.com/genjix/bips/blob/master/bip-stealth.mediawiki

Genjix, how can we help pushing BIP63 on what you have done ?

I agree that Amir would be the second most appropriate person to pick up on Todd's contribution as Peter has more important priorities now. He has been scarcely heard of lately however. If someone can get ahold of him and see if he has the time I will do my part to help donate money and organize a campaign to fundraise a salary to cover BIP63 being formalized and than tested.

I'll post a link to this portion of the discussion to Unsystem mailing list with cc to Amir with a request for a reply from Amir back to this forum.

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Nicolas Dorier on June 18, 2015, 06:59:17 AM

Well, if it blocks adoption, in this case it should be finalized. Genjix started working on that on https://github.com/genjix/bips/blob/master/bip-stealth.mediawiki

Genjix, how can we help pushing BIP63 on what you have done ?

I agree that Amir would be the second most appropriate person to pick up on Todd's contribution as Peter has more important priorities now. He has been scarcely heard of lately however. If someone can get ahold of him and see if he has the time I will do my part to help donate money and organize a campaign to fundraise a salary to cover BIP63 being formalized and than tested.

Nicolas Dorier

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 662

Quote

Again, as per part of my original post, this is one of the reasons that the Electrum wallet developer(s) gave for not finalizing the process of inclusion of stealth address into the wallet - they said they are waiting for BIP 63 to be published (presumably in draft is all it would take).

Well, if it blocks adoption, in this case it should be finalized. Genjix started working on that on https://github.com/genjix/bips/blob/master/bip-stealth.mediawiki

Genjix, how can we help pushing BIP63 on what you have done ?

ABISprotocol

sr. member

Activity: 278

Merit: 252

ABISprotocol on Gist

Quote from: dexX7 on June 17, 2015, 03:11:35 PM

Quote from: Nicolas Dorier on June 15, 2015, 10:56:34 AM

I implemented stealth payment and address into NBitcoin. (.NET library for Bitcoin dev)

For what I have seen, the BIP is just a formalization on paper of what already exist, I'm not sure this BIP is essential at all, just a nice to have.

Isn't a written formalization probably always just "nice to have"?

A specification for BIP 63 could serve as starting point for alternative implementations.

But FWIW, since it wasn't mentioned before in this thread:

https://wiki.unsystem.net/en/index.php/DarkWallet/Stealth

What are your thoughts on why no-one has yet written this up into BIP 63 (though Peter Todd has recently made clear on bitcoin-development mailing list he has no intention of doing it, but indicated someone else should feel free to)? Again, as per part of my original post, this is one of the reasons that the Electrum wallet developer(s) gave for not finalizing the process of inclusion of stealth address into the wallet - they said they are waiting for BIP 63 to be published (presumably in draft is all it would take).

dexX7

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1026

Quote from: Nicolas Dorier on June 15, 2015, 10:56:34 AM

I implemented stealth payment and address into NBitcoin. (.NET library for Bitcoin dev)

For what I have seen, the BIP is just a formalization on paper of what already exist, I'm not sure this BIP is essential at all, just a nice to have.

Isn't a written formalization probably always just "nice to have"?

A specification for BIP 63 could serve as starting point for alternative implementations.

But FWIW, since it wasn't mentioned before in this thread:

https://wiki.unsystem.net/en/index.php/DarkWallet/Stealth

Nicolas Dorier

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 662

I implemented stealth payment and address into NBitcoin. (.NET library for Bitcoin dev)

For what I have seen, the BIP is just a formalization on paper of what already exist, I'm not sure this BIP is essential at all, just a nice to have.

ABISprotocol

sr. member

Activity: 278

Merit: 252

ABISprotocol on Gist

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: funkenstein on June 13, 2015, 11:38:18 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: funkenstein on June 10, 2015, 04:36:46 PM

Quote from: manselr on June 10, 2015, 11:06:11 AM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on June 08, 2015, 02:53:33 PM

Quote from: manselr on June 08, 2015, 09:50:52 AM

Correct me if im wrong,but doesn't giving a master public key have the same result? For example, in Electrum, you give someone your master public key so they can pay you, creating a brand new, 1-time only address

The difference is: with a master public key, the sender can use it to figure out who else paid money to that address, past and future. With stealth addresses, the sender knows only the address they sent to (or maybe not even that... but you could work it out in any case by looking at which block it was confirmed into and how much the transaction was for)

How could the sender figure out who else paid money on that master public key if you created it only for him? The idea would be creating a different mpubkey for each individual.
Of course stealth addresses sound really cool and I hope it gets implemented. Right now the anonymity features of BTC are pretty poor and Gmaxwell seems to agree on this too.

Stealth addresses are usable now. So are mixers. What is your problem exactly?

What are you talking about? Mixers are a bunch of potential scams and honeypots in the making! And what stealth address that are usable now do you mean?

So: bump!

As to mixers, I was referring to coinjoin services, and DIY using altcoins and exchanges. But yeah you have a good point; exchanges are also potential scams and honeypots.. as indeed are third party mixer services, which also includes "gambling" services (you didn't think that many people really gambled did you?).

Stealth addresses work already, you just need a way to communicate a nonce to the recipient. Some wallets (like darkwallet) use op_return, others.. I'm not sure.

Oh...

To be clear, none of this means that a BIP isn't needed. The BIP (63) is still needed (and we are still waiting for Peter Todd to publish a donation address so that we can support that effort).

funkenstein

legendary

Activity: 1066

Merit: 1050

Khazad ai-menu!

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: funkenstein on June 10, 2015, 04:36:46 PM

Quote from: manselr on June 10, 2015, 11:06:11 AM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on June 08, 2015, 02:53:33 PM

Quote from: manselr on June 08, 2015, 09:50:52 AM

Correct me if im wrong,but doesn't giving a master public key have the same result? For example, in Electrum, you give someone your master public key so they can pay you, creating a brand new, 1-time only address

The difference is: with a master public key, the sender can use it to figure out who else paid money to that address, past and future. With stealth addresses, the sender knows only the address they sent to (or maybe not even that... but you could work it out in any case by looking at which block it was confirmed into and how much the transaction was for)

How could the sender figure out who else paid money on that master public key if you created it only for him? The idea would be creating a different mpubkey for each individual.
Of course stealth addresses sound really cool and I hope it gets implemented. Right now the anonymity features of BTC are pretty poor and Gmaxwell seems to agree on this too.

Stealth addresses are usable now. So are mixers. What is your problem exactly?

What are you talking about? Mixers are a bunch of potential scams and honeypots in the making! And what stealth address that are usable now do you mean?

So: bump!

As to mixers, I was referring to coinjoin services, and DIY using altcoins and exchanges. But yeah you have a good point; exchanges are also potential scams and honeypots.. as indeed are third party mixer services, which also includes "gambling" services (you didn't think that many people really gambled did you?).

Stealth addresses work already, you just need a way to communicate a nonce to the recipient. Some wallets (like darkwallet) use op_return, others.. I'm not sure.

funkenstein

legendary

Activity: 1066

Merit: 1050

Khazad ai-menu!

Quote from: manselr on June 10, 2015, 11:06:11 AM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on June 08, 2015, 02:53:33 PM

Quote from: manselr on June 08, 2015, 09:50:52 AM

Correct me if im wrong,but doesn't giving a master public key have the same result? For example, in Electrum, you give someone your master public key so they can pay you, creating a brand new, 1-time only address

The difference is: with a master public key, the sender can use it to figure out who else paid money to that address, past and future. With stealth addresses, the sender knows only the address they sent to (or maybe not even that... but you could work it out in any case by looking at which block it was confirmed into and how much the transaction was for)

How could the sender figure out who else paid money on that master public key if you created it only for him? The idea would be creating a different mpubkey for each individual.
Of course stealth addresses sound really cool and I hope it gets implemented. Right now the anonymity features of BTC are pretty poor and Gmaxwell seems to agree on this too.

Stealth addresses are usable now. So are mixers. What is your problem exactly?

Topic: Will the Stealth BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal) ever be done? (Read 7115 times)