Suggestion: Button that check/uncheck "send this transaction anonymously"

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

So as we all know, Satoshi intended Bitcoin to be p2p cash through the internet (its on the whitepaper!). I still do not understand how this concept is compatible with the public ledger, unless, we use the notion of mixing inputs and outputs. I am not an expert or a coder, but I think the CoinJoin thing is pushing on this direction and have the right idea.

Of course technologies like Darkwallet sound even cooler, but, CoinJoin seems like a more simple approach and I think it could easily be implemented in Core.

My point is, everyone must be able to send a transaction anonymously if they want to, including the most average Joe of Joes out there. Therefore, a check/uncheck button next to "send" that says "send this transaction anonymously" must be added. All this would do is automate the whole process of the CoinJoin thing, so it would send your coins mixed with random people's coins in the same transaction so there is no way to know who is sending what from A to B. This coupled with confidential transactions which hide the amount of BTC moved could reach a very respectable level of anonymity for everyone and then we would be able to start talking about actual p2p cash.

We must push for a decentralized Bitcoin and as anonymous as it gets for the whole family.

[1715138133]

1715138133

[1715138133]

1715138133

[1715138133]

1715138133

[1715138133]

1715138133

[1715138133]

1715138133

[1715138133]

1715138133

[qiuhaidong]

So as we all know, Satoshi intended Bitcoin to be p2p cash through the internet (its on the whitepaper!). I still do not understand how this concept is compatible with the public ledger, unless, we use the notion of mixing inputs and outputs. I am not an expert or a coder, but I think the CoinJoin thing is pushing on this direction and have the right idea.

Of course technologies like Darkwallet sound even cooler, but, CoinJoin seems like a more simple approach and I think it could easily be implemented in Core.

My point is, everyone must be able to send a transaction anonymously if they want to, including the most average Joe of Joes out there. Therefore, a check/uncheck button next to "send" that says "send this transaction anonymously" must be added. All this would do is automate the whole process of the CoinJoin thing, so it would send your coins mixed with random people's coins in the same transaction so there is no way to know who is sending what from A to B. This coupled with confidential transactions which hide the amount of BTC moved could reach a very respectable level of anonymity for everyone and then we would be able to start talking about actual p2p cash.

We must push for a decentralized Bitcoin and as anonymous as it gets for the whole family.

Tough times never last, but tough people do.

[unamis76]

P2P cash isn't a synonym for anonymous cash. You can remain anonymous or avoid being traced/having your multiple identities connected if you use Bitcoin correctly. I think anonymity is a good feature and the pseudo anonymous nature of Bitcoin is the best of both worlds, in my opinion. Bitcoins has its usefulness in being able to trace funds to known addresses too...

[gmaxwell]

Tracing funds is incompatible with "cash", and somewhat incompatible with the definition of money (fungiblity).

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

P2P cash isn't a synonym for anonymous cash. You can remain anonymous or avoid being traced/having your multiple identities connected if you use Bitcoin correctly. I think anonymity is a good feature and the pseudo anonymous nature of Bitcoin is the best of both worlds, in my opinion. Bitcoins has its usefulness in being able to trace funds to known addresses too...

Then what does p2p mean to you? To me it means exactly that... peer to peer + cash, in other words, the features of a peer to peer network with the features of cash, which as gmaxwell said include not being able to trace funds and fungibility, something that Bitcoin lacks right now. Lets hope that good work keeps being made in this direction. I cant wait for the confidential transactions.. I just dont like the idea of people knowing what kind of money you move, or if you want to receive donations for your code, art, or whatever, people shouldn't know what amount of donations you are getting. This seems pretty basic to me.

[lottoshares]

Automating the whole process of the CoinJoin thing in Bitcoin would change the fundamental nature of what Bitcoin is. New code would need writing which decides which coins get mixed with other coins. That code could make Bitcoin illegal in some jurisdictions, either now or in the future. Currently third part mixer services provide mixing functionality for those that want it, and it may be better to leave it to third parties to avoid legal issues.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

Automating the whole process of the CoinJoin thing in Bitcoin would change the fundamental nature of what Bitcoin is. New code would need writing which decides which coins get mixed with other coins. That code could make Bitcoin illegal in some jurisdictions, either now or in the future. Currently third part mixer services provide mixing functionality for those that want it, and it may be better to leave it to third parties to avoid legal issues.

Mixing services aren't a solution, they are centralized and they keep logs, plus it's annoying as it gets to have to send your funds somewhere, then get them back, then buy or pay whatever. It should be just a single click like a regular transaction, otherwise it's a waste of time. Also the interests of governments will eventually collide with Bitcoin's... governments will abolish cash in the next decades, I don't think they are going to like the fact that an alternative economy is possible outside their closed source electronic super controlled money nightmare, so you might as well go to the end and give everyone maximum anonymity as possible before it's too late. Of course the possibility to do transparent transactions must still be there because it has it's uses (for example managing money of an organization where the funds are shared, so this way you avoid corruption).

[bob123]

P2P was never standing for being anonymous at all

[Eidolon7]

Anonymity is what has caused so many of the "mishaps" in the crypto world that i really don't see development of such features to be beneficial. We should be working to build a better public image and increase adoption rather than hiding the traces of our use of such technology. I understand that in some jurisdictions there is little to no privacy protections and that use of such "disruptive" technology can cause complications however that is only the case for a minority and it is the majority that we should develop things further.
Until we can get passed this whole "obsession" with anonymity then we will not see huge growth in adoption.

The Council Approves this message.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

P2P was never standing for being anonymous at all

Again, read the whitepaper. It clearly says p2p cash, which involves p2p's features AND cash features, simple as that. And no, a public ledger where everything can be clearly traced and anyone with enough resources can know if you bought a coffee, toothpaste, a porn movie or some ak47 because you believe in imaginary men in the sky or something, is not p2p cash.

Anonymity is what has caused so many of the "mishaps" in the crypto world that i really don't see development of such features to be beneficial. We should be working to build a better public image and increase adoption rather than hiding the traces of our use of such technology. I understand that in some jurisdictions there is little to no privacy protections and that use of such "disruptive" technology can cause complications however that is only the case for a minority and it is the majority that we should develop things further.
Until we can get passed this whole "obsession" with anonymity then we will not see huge growth in adoption.

The Council Approves this message.

I don't think satoshi nakamoto cared about what the status quo thought about Bitcoin, it was not in it's vision. If you want a different Bitcoin than satoshi's vision, that's another story.

[clayford08]

Bitcoin has already evolved since its inception. It takes a fork to do such a thing, though.

[btc_enigma]

So as we all know, Satoshi intended Bitcoin to be p2p cash through the internet (its on the whitepaper!). I still do not understand how this concept is compatible with the public ledger, unless, we use the notion of mixing inputs and outputs. I am not an expert or a coder, but I think the CoinJoin thing is pushing on this direction and have the right idea.

Of course technologies like Darkwallet sound even cooler, but, CoinJoin seems like a more simple approach and I think it could easily be implemented in Core.

My point is, everyone must be able to send a transaction anonymously if they want to, including the most average Joe of Joes out there. Therefore, a check/uncheck button next to "send" that says "send this transaction anonymously" must be added. All this would do is automate the whole process of the CoinJoin thing, so it would send your coins mixed with random people's coins in the same transaction so there is no way to know who is sending what from A to B. This coupled with confidential transactions which hide the amount of BTC moved could reach a very respectable level of anonymity for everyone and then we would be able to start talking about actual p2p cash.

We must push for a decentralized Bitcoin and as anonymous as it gets for the whole family.

This is a good idea. Maybe you could write a patch to put this in electrum ... So that people could test it out

[oaxaca]

Mixing services aren't a solution, they are centralized and they keep logs, plus it's annoying as it gets to have to send your funds somewhere, then get them back, then buy or pay whatever. It should be just a single click like a regular transaction, otherwise it's a waste of time.

This is a good idea.  DASH has this functionality already.  The funds are pre-mixed at any time prior to sending.
https://dashtalk.org/

Yes, it should be part of the protocol itself.   DASH does this right now.  In the wallet you can choose to send funds "anonymously" or "non-anonymously" with a single click.  The mixing is facilitated by the full nodes, so there is no need for a 3rd party mixing service.

[nioc]

P2P was never standing for being anonymous at all

Although it could be...............satoshi left shortly after the following.

I'm not grasping your idea yet.  Does it hide any information from the public network?  What is the advantage?

If at least 50% of nodes validated transactions enough that old transactions can be discarded, then everyone saw everything and could keep a record of it.

Can public nodes see the values of transactions?  Can they see which previous transaction the value came from?  If they can, then they know everything.  If they can't, then they couldn't verify that the value came from a valid source, so you couldn't take their generated chain as verification of it.

Does it hide the bitcoin addresses?  Is that it?  OK, maybe now I see, if that's it.

Crypto may offer a way to do "key blinding".  I did some research and it was obscure, but there may be something there.  "group signatures" may be related.

There's something here in the general area:
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/crypto/rh/

What we need is a way to generate additional blinded variations of a public key.  The blinded variations would have the same properties as the root public key, such that the private key could generate a signature for any one of them.  Others could not tell if a blinded key is related to the root key, or other blinded keys from the same root key.  These are the properties of blinding.  Blinding, in a nutshell, is x = (x * large_random_int) mod m.

When paying to a bitcoin address, you would generate a new blinded key for each use.

Then you need to be able to sign a signature such that you can't tell that two signatures came from the same private key.  I'm not sure if always signing a different blinded public key would already give you this property.  If not, I think that's where group signatures comes in.  With group signatures, it is possible for something to be signed but not know who signed it.

As an example, say some unpopular military attack has to be ordered, but nobody wants to go down in history as the one who ordered it.  If 10 leaders have private keys, one of them could sign the order and you wouldn't know who did it.

There happens to be an implementation of what he is talking about

[pandher]

Yes, it should be part of the protocol itself.   DASH does this right now.  In the wallet you can choose to send funds "anonymously" or "non-anonymously" with a single click.  The mixing is facilitated by the full nodes, so there is no need for a 3rd party mixing service.

Dash uses masternodes if i am correct, which means the user has to "trust" masternodes not to censor them. Kind of a logical failure i think

The mixing is better if implemented at protocol level, for ex - Cryptonote protocol

[smoothie]

So as we all know, Satoshi intended Bitcoin to be p2p cash through the internet (its on the whitepaper!). I still do not understand how this concept is compatible with the public ledger, unless, we use the notion of mixing inputs and outputs. I am not an expert or a coder, but I think the CoinJoin thing is pushing on this direction and have the right idea.

Of course technologies like Darkwallet sound even cooler, but, CoinJoin seems like a more simple approach and I think it could easily be implemented in Core.

My point is, everyone must be able to send a transaction anonymously if they want to, including the most average Joe of Joes out there. Therefore, a check/uncheck button next to "send" that says "send this transaction anonymously" must be added. All this would do is automate the whole process of the CoinJoin thing, so it would send your coins mixed with random people's coins in the same transaction so there is no way to know who is sending what from A to B. This coupled with confidential transactions which hide the amount of BTC moved could reach a very respectable level of anonymity for everyone and then we would be able to start talking about actual p2p cash.

We must push for a decentralized Bitcoin and as anonymous as it gets for the whole family.

This is a good idea. Maybe you could write a patch to put this in electrum ... So that people could test it out

This is a good idea.  DASH has this functionality already.  The funds are pre-mixed at any time prior to sending.
https://dashtalk.org/

Premixed? Yeah if you want to wait 20 hours or 3 days as seen at the link below:

This reddit discussion from a few months ago gives insight into how long darksend mixing should/could take:


link: https://www.reddit.com/r/dashpay/comments/3etq0y/what_is_the_point_of_darksend_mixing_in_the/

2d2d2d2aasdasd

In the dashcore wallet it has darksend mixing, it doesnt give any options but says 1000drk/2 rounds, so it will try to mix my balance of 10drk 100x over? or 200x over? Whats the point of this if i can darksend when i send payment?
edit: Its been over 2 hours and only says 8% which it said 20minutes into it, it keeps saying it failed will retry like theres something wrong with the network, is darksend a working feature?

Tungfa:

You can change the mixing settings in " Wallet Preferences"
Mixing makes pre mixed coins available for DS ! For the mixing you need other coins/wallets to be mixing with you, so if nobody is online mixing it will take longer. be patient, DS works

2d2d2d2aasdasd:

Its been running since i made this post and its only at 9%, how patient do i have to be, like 72 hours patient?

Tungfa:

depends on how many coins, how many rounds
what are you doing 1000 Dash / 2 Rounds ? 72 hours definitely

2d2d2d2aasdasd:

I dont even have 1000 dash, i have like $20 worth. Its set at 1000 dash by default but im assuming that means it will mix up to 1000, right, like how could it mix more than there is?
So basically to use dash anonymously i got to leave my computer on for 3 days?

 

#FAIL

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

The problem with dash's approach is the masternodes idea is prone to attacks, I think I remember it would be relatively easy for the feds or whatever to intercept said masternodes and ddoss them and whatnot. The thing is, it seems is not a sustainable solution. Ring signatures seem like a positive idea but I remember reading about blockchain bloat problems and scalability problems.

Let's just hope gmaxwell and friends continue doing a good job into making Bitcoin more anonymous because right now anonymity is impossible unless you at least mix your coins each time you want to buy something/send coins to someone by sending them into some mixer first which is annoying and a waste of time. I want to seamlessly send coins from A to B without having to send them first to some other place. This includes not having to convert to some alt as well.

[watashi-kokoto]

How is cash anonymous?

In every store there is over 90000 cameras they can trace you by face, body if they need to.

[shorena]

How is cash anonymous?

In every store there is over 90000 cameras they can trace you by face, body if they need to.

Stop smearing your name one the bills while shopping.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

How is cash anonymous?

In every store there is over 90000 cameras they can trace you by face, body if they need to.

Stop smearing your name one the bills while shopping.

Well he has a good point tho, sure cash has no public ledger and whatnot, but you need to physically move it, this is counter-productive privacy wise since as he pointed there are cameras everywhere nowadays, so you can kiss goodbye to privacy unless you meet up in the middle of a forest or somewhere bizarre like that which is not very attractive customer wise.

Of course this is not a problem if you just get inside a house, but you would still trust that the other party hasn't placed a hidden minicamera recording you or something. So the ultimate form of cash for me would be anonymous and online, because you wouldn't need physical presence.