|
Title: Snicker - New Privacy for Bitcoin transactions Post by: dkbit98 on November 14, 2019, 11:39:52 PM I think most of us Bitcoin lovers would like to have more privacy with our Bitcoin transactions, as even Satoshi would want this.
Some people for that purpose use CoinJoin, mixers or privacy oriented wallets like Wasabi and Samourai. Adam waxwing Gibson proposed new idea called SNICKER (Simple Non-Interactive Coinjoin with Keys for Encryption Reused) and I do like the name, maybe because it reminds me of something not related to Bitcoins ;) SNICKER is based on CoinJoin, that I think most of us know more or less, but with some major improvements. Quote from: waxwing SNICKER (Simple Non-Interactive Coinjoin with Keys for Encryption Reused) is a simple method for allowing the creation of a two party coinjoin without any synchronisation or interaction between the participants. It relies on the idea of reused keys (either reused addresses, or identification of ownership of signed inputs and thus pubkeys in signatures). The address reuse scenario may mean that this is suitable as a privacy repair mechanism, but it would likely be used more broadly as a method for opportunistic coinjoin requiring literally zero user (inter)action within wallets. The implementation requirements for wallet developers are minimal. draftBIP: https://gist.github.com/AdamISZ/2c13fb5819bd469ca318156e2cf25d79 Read more details in source article: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/snicker-how-alice-and-bob-can-mix-bitcoin-with-no-interaction waxwing blog: https://joinmarket.me/blog/blog/snicker/ Title: Re: Snicker - New Privacy for Bitcoin transactions Post by: pooya87 on November 15, 2019, 06:51:28 AM this proposal has at least one fundamental flaw. it relies heavily on address reuse which is something that we should try to avoid https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address_reuse
i also can't help but feel the idea of "Bulletin Board" is bad too, the spam attack problem is mentioned there but i think it is a much more serious problem than that. it was an interesting BIP though, thanks for sharing. Title: Re: Snicker - New Privacy for Bitcoin transactions Post by: dkbit98 on November 15, 2019, 10:21:54 AM this proposal has at least one fundamental flaw. it relies heavily on address reuse which is something that we should try to avoid https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address_reuse i also can't help but feel the idea of "Bulletin Board" is bad too, the spam attack problem is mentioned there but i think it is a much more serious problem than that. it was an interesting BIP though, thanks for sharing. Yes, there are Pros as Cons for this method for sure. Reuse is only in SNICKER 1v for SNICKER v2 proposal there is no reuse, and is it a bit more complex than v1 Quote In this second version, Bob does not get Alice’s public key from a reused address. Instead, Bob takes the public key from an input of the same transaction that created Alice’s UTXO. Bob assumes that at least one of the inputs in that transaction was created by Alice herself and that she still has the private keys for these. Bob makes this assumption because this time, Alice’s UTXO is even more clearly marked as available for mixing, and it would only be so clearly marked if Alice controls the private keys corresponding to the inputs. The SNICKER BIP does not specify how the initial marking would be done but suggests that certain wallets (like JoinMarket wallets) unmistakably reveal such information. Alternatively, Alice could simply post a message on the bulletin board advertising her UTXO. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/snicker-how-alice-and-bob-can-mix-bitcoin-with-no-interaction Title: Re: Snicker - New Privacy for Bitcoin transactions Post by: Carlton Banks on November 15, 2019, 04:21:58 PM 2 party coinjoin makes so much more sense than the multiparty form used by the purpose-based Coinjoin wallet software. What's the point in having anonymized outputs when it's so easy to flag them as an obvious product of a coinjoin? You can say "but I'm not smuggling fighter jets, I'm just a North Korean transsexual whistleblower trying to protect my privacy", whereupon someone may say "prove it", and there goes your privacy.
2 party coinjoin, if done right, makes it impossible to go on fishing expeditions to persecute people using coinjoins, and blockchain analytics gets many, many times harder. So SNICKER is definitely a step in the right direction, I'm gonna take a look over the details :) Title: Re: Snicker - New Privacy for Bitcoin transactions Post by: dkbit98 on November 15, 2019, 07:44:49 PM 2 party coinjoin, if done right, makes it impossible to go on fishing expeditions to persecute people using coinjoins, and blockchain analytics gets many, many times harder. So SNICKER is definitely a step in the right direction, I'm gonna take look over the details :) I agree with you and I do like the idea very much. Strange how I found nothing about Snicker so far on Bitcointalk forum, and waxwing first talked about this idea two years ago. Maybe just search function and G-search didn't detect it. Title: Re: Snicker - New Privacy for Bitcoin transactions Post by: Kprawn on November 16, 2019, 07:52:41 AM Would SNICKER (Simple Non-Interactive Coinjoin with Keys for Encryption Reused) render all other Mixer services useless? Why would you pay to
get more privacy, if you can get it for free? Why trust an anonymous third party, like Mixer services if this can just be a add-on function of the core software? The one weak point of this proposal might be the centralized bulletin board, because the Blockchain spies will just focus on that. I am all for a Bip that would make transactions more anonymous, but then it has to be decentralized and bulletproof. ;) Title: Re: Snicker - New Privacy for Bitcoin transactions Post by: dkbit98 on November 16, 2019, 07:40:02 PM Would SNICKER (Simple Non-Interactive Coinjoin with Keys for Encryption Reused) render all other Mixer services useless? Why would you pay to get more privacy, if you can get it for free? I don't think it will be totally free, and some fee should be paid, but much less then in current mixer services. Bigger issue for me in this Snicker proposal is possibility of Sybil attacks. Title: Re: Snicker - New Privacy for Bitcoin transactions Post by: rdbase on November 16, 2019, 08:09:19 PM So SNICKER is definitely a step in the right direction You are aware some elements of certain laws in the us pertain to obscuring source of ... what is that name for? A practice where a firm capitalizes on loopholes in the regulatory system to circumvent unfavorable regulations. It is what binance had to do so their collective arm can keep operating in the us. Title: Re: Snicker - New Privacy for Bitcoin transactions Post by: figmentofmyass on November 16, 2019, 08:28:58 PM So SNICKER is definitely a step in the right direction You are aware some elements of certain laws in the us pertain to obscuring source of ...what is that name for? you're referring to money laundering. that only applies to concealing the source of illegally obtained money. snicker is laundering-agnostic and requires no interaction between participants, so there is no way for the other party to question/confirm whether funds were illegally obtained. the counterparty has therefore engaged in no crime. this is specifically different from, for example, a centralized mixer that advertises their service for money laundering. Title: Re: Snicker - New Privacy for Bitcoin transactions Post by: dkbit98 on November 17, 2019, 10:12:11 PM Snicker is not the only proposal for Bitcoin privacy.
Group of Bitcoin developers are currently testing and working on Bitcoin privacy and scaling with BIP protocols related to Taproot and Schnorr, https://www.coindesk.com/an-army-of-bitcoin-devs-is-battle-testing-upgrades-to-privacy-and-scaling Title: Re: Snicker - New Privacy for Bitcoin transactions Post by: jseverson on November 18, 2019, 02:33:35 AM You are aware some elements of certain laws in the us pertain to obscuring source of ... what is that name for? Mixing coins is perfectly legal: Mixing Bitcoins that are obtained legally is not a crime[...] So I don't see why something like this, which won't even be a centralized service, wouldn't be. Would SNICKER (Simple Non-Interactive Coinjoin with Keys for Encryption Reused) render all other Mixer services useless? It's too soon to tell, but the fact that it requires some interaction between users may dissuade some people. Instant gratification is preferred if available nowadays. Either way, the more privacy options there are, the better for us. Title: Re: Snicker - New Privacy for Bitcoin transactions Post by: ragavancoin on November 18, 2019, 11:13:50 AM Thanks for Adam Waxwing Gibson for proposing Snicker. Bitcoin users will definitely need more privacy. Some users know and some do not know about it.
But the thing is they should not charge for that. SNICKER helps bitcoin to create Coin joins during the final transaction transaction for privacy reasons. The reasonable anonymous measures are to be followed. I personally liked the idea of Gibson. Title: Re: Snicker - New Privacy for Bitcoin transactions Post by: Asmonist on November 18, 2019, 11:40:17 AM Snicker is somehow reliable. But I guess there are still flaws on it. Privacy is something so broad and I think even systems or apps like that is quite questionable. We all know that these are still human invention and more likely they can also evade it. Nonetheless, I guess we can still rely on it for a little privacy but personally I can't fully entrust my bitcoin transactions but we as part of users of these technologies we are just under their rules. I guess having privacy in bitcoin transactions are still far from what is expected since anyone has the capacity to envade it.
|