.

[Ente]

Any updates on the topic ? Is anybody working on it ?

i hope they will update it, or someone pick it up since this is really important!

Live in hope, die in despair! ---

It will never happen. The developers want BTC to get mainstream acceptance. The major issue that Governments and institutions have is the perceived anonymous nature of the BTC system. Therefore the developers will not countenance the idea of increased anonymity, perceived or otherwise.

..quite a bold statement. Care to back it by something?

Ente

[kjj]

Any updates on the topic ? Is anybody working on it ?

i hope they will update it, or someone pick it up since this is really important!

Live in hope, die in despair! ---

It will never happen. The developers want BTC to get mainstream acceptance. The major issue that Governments and institutions have is the perceived anonymous nature of the BTC system. Therefore the developers will not countenance the idea of increased anonymity, perceived or otherwise.

Forget the word anonymous, it has all sorts of negative implications.

What we want is privacy, and privacy in our transactions is what we are talking about here. We obviously have to do it ourselves.
Therefore start a Topic, find an Escrow holder, start a Bounty for a viable but entirely separate Privacy patch to be developed.

Who is interested??

Establish an Escrow and I pledge 10BTC

What the fuck is wrong with you?  What makes you bring this kind of shit here?

The reason this isn't included in the main client is because it is hard to maintain, and provides very little real benefit in reality.  This has been discussed at length in this very thread.  By all means, please, please! find someone to take charge of this.  But take your bullshit conspiracy theories elsewhere, none of the devs are excluding this to gain favor with "the man".

[CIYAM]

You would basically have to write an advanced script or a frontend for bitcoind which would use this feature.

Anyway, it's complicated, not everybody has time for this and you don't have certanity that you did it properly. I would probably write my own script if that was easy enough.

Actually if you use brainwallet.org to do this it seems pretty straight forward - I will update when I've tested some tx's with it (will be doing this in the next few days).

[flatfly]

A little-known fact about Electrum is that it has supported this type of control over coin selection for a couple months now, both in gui and command-line mode. Also consider that the current (1.2) release fully implements satoshi's SPV protocol, so it's essentially becoming a fairly user-friendly, no-trust client!

Disclosure: I maintain testing and end-user Windows builds of Electrum.

[flatronw]

Any updates on the topic ? Is anybody working on it ?

i hope they will update it, or someone pick it up since this is really important!

Live in hope, die in despair! ---

It will never happen. The developers want BTC to get mainstream acceptance. The major issue that Governments and institutions have is the perceived anonymous nature of the BTC system. Therefore the developers will not countenance the idea of increased anonymity, perceived or otherwise.

Forget the word anonymous, it has all sorts of negative implications.

What we want is privacy, and privacy in our transactions is what we are talking about here. We obviously have to do it ourselves.
Therefore start a Topic, find an Escrow holder, start a Bounty for a viable but entirely separate Privacy patch to be developed.

Who is interested??

Establish an Escrow and I pledge 10BTC

What the fuck is wrong with you?  What makes you bring this kind of shit here?

The reason this isn't included in the main client is because it is hard to maintain, and provides very little real benefit in reality.  This has been discussed at length in this very thread.  By all means, please, please! find someone to take charge of this.  But take your bullshit conspiracy theories elsewhere, none of the devs are excluding this to gain favor with "the man".



In answer to your question :-

“What the fuck is wrong with you?  What makes you bring this kind of shit here?”

This is what makes me bring this shit here!
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf

Then I can see you have already seen it but others may not have. So here it is
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=121271.0

It's very interesting that you immediately take it that I inferred conspiracy and defend your perception abusively. Makes one wonder exactly why a perceived inference of conspiracy would elicit such a abusive response from Bitcoin Foundation-Life Member.

In short what I attempted to convey was. Viewed realistically there is no benefit to BTC as a entity in increasing the level of anonymity. In fact it may be detrimental because the level of anonymity is already a major issue with Regulators. Don't take my word for it on the anonymity issue, read the ECB document, ECB is concerned, all the Central Banks will have exactly the same opinion. It is not a conspiracy, it is common sense. It is called not making matters worse!
I don't for one minute think that the developers are as inept as you seem willing to portray. If they saw it as a beneficial priority, they would develop a solution that was maintainable and offered better privacy. It seems it is simply not a priority. Why is it not a priority? see the paragraph above.
This topic currently has ~13886 views it is about the fourth most viewed topic on this Alternative Clients board. That indicates that this is a matter of concern for many. I would guess that once more people read the recent ECB document and start to fully understand the possible implications there will be a great deal more concern.

Now, as for “the man” as you so quaintly put it, “the man” may be unable to shut BTC down in a single stroke but “the man” can make it so God-damn long term difficult that BTC will become nonviable.
Don't try to tell me the developers are not watching “the man” According to the ECB document Gavin Andresen has an “invite” from the CIA to brief them regarding BTC. But if you say so, no, no, the developers are not watching “the man”  This is the Core Developer “invited” to brief the CIA.

Now, get real, if you are going to deny something, you have to make it at least plausible.

[K1773R]

Any updates on the topic ? Is anybody working on it ?

i hope they will update it, or someone pick it up since this is really important!

Live in hope, die in despair! ---

It will never happen. The developers want BTC to get mainstream acceptance. The major issue that Governments and institutions have is the perceived anonymous nature of the BTC system. Therefore the developers will not countenance the idea of increased anonymity, perceived or otherwise.

Forget the word anonymous, it has all sorts of negative implications.

What we want is privacy, and privacy in our transactions is what we are talking about here. We obviously have to do it ourselves.
Therefore start a Topic, find an Escrow holder, start a Bounty for a viable but entirely separate Privacy patch to be developed.

Who is interested??

Establish an Escrow and I pledge 10BTC

What the fuck is wrong with you?  What makes you bring this kind of shit here?

The reason this isn't included in the main client is because it is hard to maintain, and provides very little real benefit in reality.  This has been discussed at length in this very thread.  By all means, please, please! find someone to take charge of this.  But take your bullshit conspiracy theories elsewhere, none of the devs are excluding this to gain favor with "the man".



In answer to your question :-

“What the fuck is wrong with you?  What makes you bring this kind of shit here?”

This is what makes me bring this shit here!
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf

Then I can see you have already seen it but others may not have. So here it is
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=121271.0

It's very interesting that you immediately take it that I inferred conspiracy and defend your perception abusively. Makes one wonder exactly why a perceived inference of conspiracy would elicit such a abusive response from Bitcoin Foundation-Life Member.

In short what I attempted to convey was. Viewed realistically there is no benefit to BTC as a entity in increasing the level of anonymity. In fact it may be detrimental because the level of anonymity is already a major issue with Regulators. Don't take my word for it on the anonymity issue, read the ECB document, ECB is concerned, all the Central Banks will have exactly the same opinion. It is not a conspiracy, it is common sense. It is called not making matters worse!
I don't for one minute think that the developers are as inept as you seem willing to portray. If they saw it as a beneficial priority, they would develop a solution that was maintainable and offered better privacy. It seems it is simply not a priority. Why is it not a priority? see the paragraph above.
This topic currently has ~13886 views it is about the fourth most viewed topic on this Alternative Clients board. That indicates that this is a matter of concern for many. I would guess that once more people read the recent ECB document and start to fully understand the possible implications there will be a great deal more concern.

Now, as for “the man” as you so quaintly put it, “the man” may be unable to shut BTC down in a single stroke but “the man” can make it so God-damn long term difficult that BTC will become nonviable.
Don't try to tell me the developers are not watching “the man” According to the ECB document Gavin Andresen has an “invite” from the CIA to brief them regarding BTC. But if you say so, no, no, the developers are not watching “the man”  This is the Core Developer “invited” to brief the CIA.

Now, get real, if you are going to deny something, you have to make it at least plausible.

holy shit totally paranoid and talking stuff without proof for it? wheres the troll flag anyway, ignored and b2t.

@flatfly:
electrum client is someway about trust, trust is bad!

@all:
ppl who need this dont really need it per GUI, a patch for bitcoind should be fine for everyone i guess?

[kjj]

This is what makes me bring this shit here!
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf

Then I can see you have already seen it but others may not have. So here it is
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=121271.0

It's very interesting that you immediately take it that I inferred conspiracy and defend your perception abusively. Makes one wonder exactly why a perceived inference of conspiracy would elicit such a abusive response from Bitcoin Foundation-Life Member.

In short what I attempted to convey was. Viewed realistically there is no benefit to BTC as a entity in increasing the level of anonymity. In fact it may be detrimental because the level of anonymity is already a major issue with Regulators. Don't take my word for it on the anonymity issue, read the ECB document, ECB is concerned, all the Central Banks will have exactly the same opinion. It is not a conspiracy, it is common sense. It is called not making matters worse!
I don't for one minute think that the developers are as inept as you seem willing to portray. If they saw it as a beneficial priority, they would develop a solution that was maintainable and offered better privacy. It seems it is simply not a priority. Why is it not a priority? see the paragraph above.
This topic currently has ~13886 views it is about the fourth most viewed topic on this Alternative Clients board. That indicates that this is a matter of concern for many. I would guess that once more people read the recent ECB document and start to fully understand the possible implications there will be a great deal more concern.

Now, as for “the man” as you so quaintly put it, “the man” may be unable to shut BTC down in a single stroke but “the man” can make it so God-damn long term difficult that BTC will become nonviable.
Don't try to tell me the developers are not watching “the man” According to the ECB document Gavin Andresen has an “invite” from the CIA to brief them regarding BTC. But if you say so, no, no, the developers are not watching “the man”  This is the Core Developer “invited” to brief the CIA.

Now, get real, if you are going to deny something, you have to make it at least plausible.

You are still accusing the devs of conspiracy.

The reasons why this patch is not included in the main client have been stated several times.  You don't believe them.  You think that the devs are intentionally leaving it out with the intention of reducing privacy, which is a flat out contradiction of public statements made by several of the devs in support of privacy.

You got an abusive response from me for two reasons.  The first is that I'm having a bad day.  The second is that I'm sick of you little fucks coming in here and making wild accusations about people that you know nothing about.  The people that write and maintain this software (for free!) are, as far as I can tell, all bigs fans of privacy and furthermore, they all seem to have serious libertarian leanings.  You should apologize to them, and I'm not above calling you out for it.

This patch requires a lot of effort to maintain, and provides very little privacy and can even be detrimental to privacy if a user gets careless with it out of a false sense of security.  That's it.  That's the reason.  Do you really think that the devs would get behind a new currency that we all hope will cause the downfall of the old financial order, but then pull back over a transaction correlation patch?

[flatfly]

Any updates on the topic ? Is anybody working on it ?

i hope they will update it, or someone pick it up since this is really important!

Live in hope, die in despair! ---

It will never happen. The developers want BTC to get mainstream acceptance. The major issue that Governments and institutions have is the perceived anonymous nature of the BTC system. Therefore the developers will not countenance the idea of increased anonymity, perceived or otherwise.

Forget the word anonymous, it has all sorts of negative implications.

What we want is privacy, and privacy in our transactions is what we are talking about here. We obviously have to do it ourselves.
Therefore start a Topic, find an Escrow holder, start a Bounty for a viable but entirely separate Privacy patch to be developed.

Who is interested??

Establish an Escrow and I pledge 10BTC

What the fuck is wrong with you?  What makes you bring this kind of shit here?

The reason this isn't included in the main client is because it is hard to maintain, and provides very little real benefit in reality.  This has been discussed at length in this very thread.  By all means, please, please! find someone to take charge of this.  But take your bullshit conspiracy theories elsewhere, none of the devs are excluding this to gain favor with "the man".



In answer to your question :-

“What the fuck is wrong with you?  What makes you bring this kind of shit here?”

This is what makes me bring this shit here!
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf

Then I can see you have already seen it but others may not have. So here it is
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=121271.0

It's very interesting that you immediately take it that I inferred conspiracy and defend your perception abusively. Makes one wonder exactly why a perceived inference of conspiracy would elicit such a abusive response from Bitcoin Foundation-Life Member.

In short what I attempted to convey was. Viewed realistically there is no benefit to BTC as a entity in increasing the level of anonymity. In fact it may be detrimental because the level of anonymity is already a major issue with Regulators. Don't take my word for it on the anonymity issue, read the ECB document, ECB is concerned, all the Central Banks will have exactly the same opinion. It is not a conspiracy, it is common sense. It is called not making matters worse!
I don't for one minute think that the developers are as inept as you seem willing to portray. If they saw it as a beneficial priority, they would develop a solution that was maintainable and offered better privacy. It seems it is simply not a priority. Why is it not a priority? see the paragraph above.
This topic currently has ~13886 views it is about the fourth most viewed topic on this Alternative Clients board. That indicates that this is a matter of concern for many. I would guess that once more people read the recent ECB document and start to fully understand the possible implications there will be a great deal more concern.

Now, as for “the man” as you so quaintly put it, “the man” may be unable to shut BTC down in a single stroke but “the man” can make it so God-damn long term difficult that BTC will become nonviable.
Don't try to tell me the developers are not watching “the man” According to the ECB document Gavin Andresen has an “invite” from the CIA to brief them regarding BTC. But if you say so, no, no, the developers are not watching “the man”  This is the Core Developer “invited” to brief the CIA.

Now, get real, if you are going to deny something, you have to make it at least plausible.

holy shit totally paranoid and talking stuff without proof for it? wheres the troll flag anyway, ignored and b2t.

@flatfly:
electrum client is someway about trust, trust is bad!

@all:
ppl who need this dont really need it per GUI, a patch for bitcoind should be fine for everyone i guess?

Err... read up on SPV?  Electrum now uses the SPV light-client protocol as defined by Satoshi to locally verify all payments, as well as connecting to Electrum servers (little more than bitcoind+ABE, really) to achieve faster synchronization. So, unless there's something I'm missing, Electrum 1.2, thanks to the very recent implementation of SPV by ThomasV, no longer needs to "trust" anyone.

 

[Pieter Wuille]

SPV does not mean verifying transactions. It means verifying the block headers and their proof of work, and verifying that the claimed transactions do in fact belong to the blocks. It does require some trust, in particular it relies on the majority of mining power creating valid blocks, but indeed far less than just randomly trusting a central server.

[SgtSpike]

For the more technically savvy the raw tx API (perhaps with help from brainwallet.org) reduces the priority of this feature a lot (as you have been able to do everything you want as far as controlling your coins since 0.7 was released).

For the less technically competent I guess the question is really whether the UI can be made easy enough to make the feature worthwhile implementing (if it's not easily understood then there is probably little point in doing more work on this). Note that I haven't actually tested the patch so have no idea how intuitive the UI is.

Certainly I doubt it will ever be a feature that Gavin's grandmother will be asking for.

One only has to look at blockchain.info's implementation to see how easy a UI could be.

You simply tell the system how many coins you want to send, and to what address, and you have an optional drop-down asking you what address you would like to send from, and how many coins reside at said address.  It might be difficult to implement in the code (though blockchain.info seems to have done it quite successfully without much trouble), but it's certainly not difficult to use from an end-user perspective.  I'd even argue that it would give users a better understanding of addresses and wallets in general, rather than just having an account balance that is somehow tied to a variety of unknown addresses (once change addresses are created and not shown to the user).

[N.Z.]

This patch ... provides very little privacy

That`s not even close to truth.

[flatfly]

SPV does not mean verifying transactions. It means verifying the block headers and their proof of work, and verifying that the claimed transactions do in fact belong to the blocks. It does require some trust, in particular it relies on the majority of mining power creating valid blocks, but indeed far less than just randomly trusting a central server.

Thanks for clarifying this. So I guess this is a security tradeoff that will eventually have to be accepted by all regular (as in, not able or willing to run bitcoind) end-users?

[Pieter Wuille]

Actually, the one reason why I like coin control GUI's, is because they give users insight in the system. More transparency and understanding are a good thing if you want to want people to trust the software and the system in general. This is for me enough to vote for including it, if it gets implemented properly. I'm not a GUI programmer myself, though, and have other priorities.

However, and probably contrary to why most people want this feature, I believe it's a bad thing from a usability point of view. Privacy shouldn't require people to micro-manage individual coins in a wallet. If the software too eagerly links coins together (and it does), the software should be fixed. If people want to prevent several sources of income to be linked entirely, the software should provide easy multi-wallet support (and it hopefully will, in a not too distant future). Both of these are far more important for the end-user, in my point of view. That said, no problem with providing the expert user an expert mode that allows micro-management.

[Luke-Jr]

Actually, if people really want to increase privacy, it's better to do more linkage... I believe it was coingenuity (if not him, copumpkin) who proposed a group of p2p nodes building a collective transaction with all their inputs and outputs combined and everyone signing it. This not only saves space in the blockchain and other nice benefits like that, it also means the assumption that all sources are the same is broken and improves privacy.

[K1773R]

its not mainly about privacy, its mainly about being in control what goes where. im root and therefore i should be able to decide which input goes to which output.

@CIYAM Pty. Ltd.
if its so easy, why arnt u creating a little wrapper (best in C so u can directly patch bitcoind with it ) for it? Altough i have to say i didnt check this function out yet, maybe its really that easy.

[CIYAM]

@CIYAM Pty. Ltd.
if its so easy, why arnt u creating a little wrapper (best in C so u can directly patch bitcoind with it ) for it? Altough i have to say i didnt check this function out yet, maybe its really that easy.

Unfortunately I have very little time to spend on anything but my own project (working 7 days a week with very little time off in the last couple of years).

The "coin control" patch (as it is) in fact is not actually functional enough for what I need (as I need to control the "change" address which it doesn't do). This is why I had a look into the raw tx API stuff. It is quite complex but if you play with brainwallet.org's web page then it looks as though you can put together a raw tx fairly easily (which by default sends the change back to the first input address which happens to be the exact behaviour that I am after).

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Actually, if people really want to increase privacy, it's better to do more linkage... I believe it was coingenuity (if not him, copumpkin) who proposed a group of p2p nodes building a collective transaction with all their inputs and outputs combined and everyone signing it. This not only saves space in the blockchain and other nice benefits like that, it also means the assumption that all sources are the same is broken and improves privacy.

Wouldn't that be like one-order-of-magnitude more complicated ?

Also, why not use both solutions (collective transaction & coin selection) as they are not exclusive ?