Untaint for a fee using out-of-band transactions and large mining fees

[eldentyrell]

I think that is tinfoil-hat talk.  I believe most people want a free and fair system, and so bitcoin will stay free and fair.

Unfortunately I don't think so.  Sadly most people today would rather have security than freedom.  That sucks, but it's how it is.

a bit of taint was peeled off every fee-paying transaction included in the block.  So each newly generated coin can be traced back to a lot of addresses…. It's not very useful to define taint in this way, so blockchain.info for instance does not include it.  If you perform taint analysis on a newly generated coin, you'll find zero taint.

Probably because blockchain.info's taint analyzer has very different goals than governments and the legacy financial system do.  Be assured that if a taint system is imposed, it will deal with transaction fees.

Bitstamp is already demanding receipts for mining hardware.  This can be done.  Semiconductor fabrication is already heavily licensed.  I have to be pretty creative with the EAR paperwork when taping out to overseas foundries.

It's really a shame that the Zerocoin people are taking the attitude of "claim priority (first to publish), somebody else can do the heavy lifting of actually making it work".  Satoshi did it right, he did both, and he changed the course of history.  People like Satoshi are the ones who created the Internet, and I see fewer and fewer of them in academia with each passing year.

[AnonyMint]

It's really a shame that the Zerocoin people are taking the attitude of "claim priority (first to publish), somebody else can do the heavy lifting of actually making it work".  Satoshi did it right, he did both, and he changed the course of history.  People like Satoshi are the ones who created the Internet, and I see fewer and fewer of them in academia with each passing year.

Zerocoin recently became much more practical with a 344 byte signature instead 40 - 50KB. I believe the details are not yet published?

http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/G.Danezis/papers/DanezisFournetKohlweissParno13.pdf

The remaining problem I have with Zerocoin is at least two-fold.

• It is based on number-theoretic arguments thus it won't be resistant to quantum computing, and thus eventually all our chains of ownerships become revealed in the future. I am working on a technical solution now.
• It doesn't obscure the IP address.

[AnonyMint]

Well there he goes censoring posts as he said he wouldn't  

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

It amazes me the way this thread has gone off topic . I guess this discussion is more interesting than the OOB untainting.

Tainting won't be solved by the idea in the OP. (besides it is silly, easier to just buy the newly minted coins from he miner) It will only be solved by adding something like Zerocoin to the blockchain + very strong building IP address obscurity.

Thus the relevance of the impossibility to fork Bitcoin and the importance of freedom to make a better altcoin (even it is just really Bitcoin 2.0).

Btw, here is some more technical insight on my prior post about Zerocoin:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495527.msg5508024#msg5508024
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=500994.msg5518821#msg5518821

[AnonyMint]

He did it again.

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

It amazes me the way this thread has gone off topic . I guess this discussion is more interesting than the OOB untainting.

Yes, I have failed as a moderator!  I don't like deleting comments, but it is important to keep the thread on topic.  This thread is about using out-of-band transactions and large mining fees to untaint coins. 


Edit: I just deleted a post from AnonyMint, but then it hit me that with a slight twist it was actually on topic and a good idea (now I've really failed as a moderator lol).   

Instead of sending the tainted coins with a large mining fee using a non-public backchannel, just send the coins normally to the untainting service.  They would then perform the large-mining fee transaction themselves.  The fee they charge for the service would already take into account the expected loss to the orphaning.  In other words, you are exchanging old coins from the miner for newly-created coins (at a small fee).  The miner doesn't care about taint because the chain of taint breaks using the large-mining-fee method that I proposed earlier. 

And who took it off topic? (look in the mirror)

Then you did exactly what you were writing you weren't going to do (delete my post)

You change the facts as fits to your errors and necessary covering of your arse.