|
Title: Will Schnorr signatures be able to give us default "CoinJoined" transactions? Post by: thejaytiesto on April 23, 2016, 06:12:51 PM Everyone that has been around for some time must know by now that Bitcoin has a problem when it comes to fungibility, because of the blockchain being too transparent. The good job done by Gmaxwell is delivering Confidential Transactions soon which solves the "how much money is this dude moving" problem, but not the "this dude moving money from A to B" problem. Now Coinjoin can potentially fix this, but we need as much people as possible using it otherwise it's pointless. So what's the ideal situation? Everyone using it by default, unless you want to specifically send a "transparent transaction" which has it's uses too of course.
So apparently Coinjoin not only makes it more private but cheaper, and Schnorr sigs will deliver a more efficient way to deal with this stuff. So my question is, how far are we from true fungibility? (all transactions mixed to hell so it's impossible to know what's going on) When we will be able to start a "roadmap to fungibility"? like a transition from the current standard transaction model, to the next standard ("CoinJoined") transaction model? Because that's what we should do as soon as possible. This should be a top priority imo. Lets not forget that Bitcoin is supposed to be p2p cash so this is a must to reach that definition, so like I said before, default state of a transaction should be Coinjoin and CT enabled for everyone, unless you want to be transparent in purpose. Title: Re: Will Schnorr signatures be able to give us default "CoinJoined" transactions? Post by: gmaxwell on April 23, 2016, 10:09:49 PM Schnorr sigs will deliver a more efficient way to deal with this stuff. The only reason our schnorr sigs will have that property is because Adam Back, Pieter, and myself have been working on it-- this kind of aggregatability isn't something that would just automatically come from schnorr, it requires a special design (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1377298.0).[...] When we will be able to start a "roadmap to fungibility"? like a transition from the current standard transaction model, to the next standard ("CoinJoined") transaction model? Because that's what we should do as soon as possible. This should be a top priority imo. Lets not forget that Bitcoin is supposed to be p2p cash so this is a must to reach that definition, so like I said before, default state of a transaction should be Coinjoin and CT enabled for everyone, unless you want to be transparent in purpose. We consider it a priority, but it's only with the advent of segwit that it becomes sufficiently easy to deploy these improvements that I can be pretty confident of getting them in (and rather than having them end up as a marketing point in some altcoin.). Segwit isn't in the network yet, and there is still a sizable "online" force of people attacking it, the folks working on it (and on general fungibility) improvements-- which makes it harder to give concrete schedules. I'd like to say that I expect to get aggregateable schnorr into Bitcoin in the next year; but that depends on a multitude of factors that are hard to predict and that I can't control. Title: Re: Will Schnorr signatures be able to give us default "CoinJoined" transactions? Post by: thejaytiesto on April 24, 2016, 05:13:56 PM Schnorr sigs will deliver a more efficient way to deal with this stuff. The only reason our schnorr sigs will have that property is because Adam Back, Pieter, and myself have been working on it-- this kind of aggregatability isn't something that would just automatically come from schnorr, it requires a special design (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1377298.0).[...] When we will be able to start a "roadmap to fungibility"? like a transition from the current standard transaction model, to the next standard ("CoinJoined") transaction model? Because that's what we should do as soon as possible. This should be a top priority imo. Lets not forget that Bitcoin is supposed to be p2p cash so this is a must to reach that definition, so like I said before, default state of a transaction should be Coinjoin and CT enabled for everyone, unless you want to be transparent in purpose. We consider it a priority, but it's only with the advent of segwit that it becomes sufficiently easy to deploy these improvements that I can be pretty confident of getting them in (and rather than having them end up as a marketing point in some altcoin.). Segwit isn't in the network yet, and there is still a sizable "online" force of people attacking it, the folks working on it (and on general fungibility) improvements-- which makes it harder to give concrete schedules. I'd like to say that I expect to get aggregateable schnorr into Bitcoin in the next year; but that depends on a multitude of factors that are hard to predict and that I can't control. I didn't know that it required more work beyond just switching to schnorr sig, im not a coder as you can see, I invest but I like to know what I invest into so I try to learn as much as possible on my spare time. I think CT+CJ+decentralized exchanges will be the holy grail, then we have internet cash for real. Ideally I would like to see an actual trading platform that is decentralized so you can do day trading against other currencies and not only some sort of decentralized localbitcoins (i think thats what bitsquare.io is trying to do). Im talking like a Poloniex type of exchange, without no restrictions and decentralized, because all those exchanges always end up either "hacked" (inside job) or authorities push them to require ID for users unless they want to be out of business (Poloniex case) Once great level of fungibility is reached all those niche "anonymous coin" may disappear since who cares about them when Bitcoin can be anonymous as well, so it can potentially absorb their marketcaps. Thanks 4 input. |