Hi gmaxwell,

you and the joinmarket team helped me a lot to get this far with my joinmarket proxy and I feel bad for "betraying" you by saying negative things about JM maybe blind to CS having the same problems but as far as I understand it, JM does not aim to avoid the taker from learning the matching, which is at best a short cut to achieve some degree of mixing and at worst makes the whole endeavor of mixing pointless, as interested parties will inevitably outbid others just to get a glimpse at the matching. And they can do this under the radar, as knowing some UTXOs will help them to know a lot of the mixing without constantly probing every maker actively.

As far as I understand, in CS there is no obvious way to learn any matching as long as there are fair players at all. It allows you to single out the DOS players and that leaves the disruptors to spying, where they can only decrease the privacy probabilistically, to the point of learning one user's matching if they totally eclipse attack him. But as all would pay their share of the fee and makers can't earn from it, this would force attackers to provide activity that others would take for legit activity and use this great tool, which in turn would make the attacker fail to single out all honest players all the time.

In JM with its asymmetric structure with makers not actually caring about their privacy and having an incentive to share data among them, I also see the incentives aligned against anonymity.

It's one of it's properties to not need a protocol change. All the blinding and shuffling happens outside of the protocol and then all parties sign the resulting transaction which again is just a regular coinjoin transaction.

The reason they are working on a BIP is probably to standardize the process, not to hard-fork bitcoin.

Hi TimRuffing and Kristov Atlas,

sorry for having missed this last post somehow in my other comment.

I'd really love to help with such a reference implementation, with a wallet-integration-perspective. At Mycelium we see fungibility as a very urgent issue and having worked on a JoinMarket Proxy myself, I feel like JoinMarket might be a dead end precisely due to what CoinShuffle claims to solve. At least from the Wallet-perspective.

For this, I wonder what harm would be done if the current state of implementation was already public for others to tinker with.

I'm particularly interested in ease of integration with wallets and my focus in Joinmarket there was to not share private keys with the mixing module, which in the link above was a server but for mobile wallets could be an app working like the orbot TOR proxy locally on the device.

I had probelms with secp256k1 but after resolving them and having merged the master with my changes, I'm not happy about the revert, so I'd love to have a branch to follow for my local changes. Any estimates on how likely it will cause problems to base my work (a coinjoin proxy server) on that branch rather than the reverted master?

@Rassah: Sorry to hear of your loss.

Clarity about btc100 needed

This discussion hurts people approaching charities. We need some definite roadmap, at least a pledge on how long business as usual should be available. Also I guess many abandoned this forum over the years, so it's unlikely all donors would learn about changes on short notice and they might not be pleased to see their funds be applied against the rules. Not sure how long a fair process for a rule change would be but certainly rather months than weeks.

Draft on how to wind down btc100

I would vote to wind down btc100 with one final transaction towards a new charity. Something like a clear road map to close BTC100, with charities being able to apply for what's left.

Charities can continue to "accept bitcoin and ask for $1000", taking from the funds as normal.

Donors can continue to provide funds.

Starting 2 months after the rule change being announced and provided no veto is given, charities can alternatively enter a lottery. Here they would get pre-approved prior to actually accepting bitcoin.

As soon as 5 are in that group, they have 2 months to actually start accepting bitcoin.

In that first 7 weeks, others may also join by starting to accept bitcoin and asking for approval.

At the end of those 7 weeks, at a predetermined block height, the list of charities is finalized and their exact order published. Almost two weeks to dispute who's actually in or out should be enough.

After the 2 months, at an exact block height, we take sha256(block_id) modulo charities.length to determine the winner.

No matter what. If you left the shop without paying with bitcoin because it was too complicated, then they don't deserve visitors for being on coinmap. Remove them and if you are in a good mood, let them know about them being removed. There is really no excuse to not have any smartphone, PC or even printed QR-Code around. It can't be that they get customers for accepting bitcoin, if those customers finally pay in fiat.

Check out how old this thread is. 29 of the 30 pages you talk about were before bitcoin XT even was a thing.

(I'm certainly not using bitcoin XT and said it before, I have installed Mycelium, Core, Copay and Schildbach and use them in about this order.)

How is it not a cryptocurrency? Etherium is a tool way beyond Bitcoin but Ether is also a coin just like bitcoin.

That said, I am not invested in any alt coin and hold my horses until we have an Etherium that works as a Bitcoin sidechain. Meanwhile thanks for all the alt-coiners to fuel this field of experimentation but don't dilute the store of value proposition of bitcoin by throwing tens of millions at some one-man shows. Do your math and keep the incentives right. An average dev will be more than happy to earn a few 100k per year and a million in advance is certainly too much.

Oh damn! So Bitcoin died?

Where did you find this picture? tineye can't find it.

I generally agree with rules being rules and not so much with "biggest donators decide". But with the weird situation of there being $30kUS that nobody wants, I feel a bit sad for those who have to have this on the back of their minds all the time and understand how they want to get this done with at some point. Oh, I'm actually glad to hear that, as 2 years ago or so, I read a comment about this eventually being made into a permanent institution.

https://coinmap.org/api/ was updated and now mentions an open license. It makes sense they picked this license as else the OSM data would have to be kept separated. With this change I'm glad I can come back to support coinmap.org. Looking forward to working more with the data, both as provider and as user.

I go with http://cryptomap.info/ for now.

Yes, this. Only hope that coinmap doesn't turn even more evil and goes on to remove all those very vulnerable OSM entries, destroying the value of the forks of the open source project that it was. Speaking of which, which is the best alternative to coinmap? One without the crappy heat-map and locked data?

You are locking down the data and I will not contribute locations to that.

OSM has to acknowledge that coinmap also brings in new editors and I edited a lot more than just the 5 locations I added/removed. You could have opted for openness and instead you whine about lack of donations. Your choice but mine would have been to offer the OSM editing as a service.

Also I can only encourage all people to stay clear from coinmap's api unless the data is released under a permissive license that allows redistribution. Else you are at the mercy of coinmap charging for it tomorrow.

yes, old thread but website is still around. I had it bookmarked at some point and it all looks fishy but I can't find any recent activity but the website still claims tons of online cam girls. Can I move the link to me "dead projects" folder?

I find it remarkable that apparently 5 months ago there was a spike in activity with a reddit on that website being opened and filled with girls but no activity since. Was that a scam? Does he still make money out of people sending coins there? What's the conclusion?

Please share a link to a video meanwhile.

Like these?

So no issue here. Thanks for clarifying.

I support the use of TOR and anonymity and would leave LB if it would follow your advice. I prefer you leave.

I did some investigations but only can tell you that I wouldn't have done it differently. My suspicion is that the node is of a weird unknown type, so it doesn't get drawn but I thought it would default to a bitcoin symbol if it doesn't know what it is.

(For some reason coinmap doesn't load at all in chrome for me right now. Firefox (iceweasel) worked though.

Could you elaborate what your main concern is? Did they state to not have a cold wallet or something? As long as they have 95% in cold wallets, I assume they will bail out anybody who looses money due to their fault.