Bitcoin Forum
June 26, 2019, 09:09:57 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Will Schnorr signatures be able to give us default "CoinJoined" transactions?  (Read 943 times)
thejaytiesto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358
Merit: 1004


View Profile
April 23, 2016, 06:12:51 PM
 #1

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.
1561540197
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561540197

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1561540197
Reply with quote  #2

1561540197
Report to moderator
1561540197
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561540197

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1561540197
Reply with quote  #2

1561540197
Report to moderator
Bitcoin Poker 3.0
The Largest Bitcoin Poker Site
Bad Beat Jackpot Available
No Limit Texas Hold'em Cash Games And Tournaments
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 2758
Merit: 2315



View Profile
April 23, 2016, 10:09:49 PM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1)
 #2

Schnorr sigs will deliver a more efficient way to deal with this stuff.
[...]
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.
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.

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.
thejaytiesto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358
Merit: 1004


View Profile
April 24, 2016, 05:13:56 PM
 #3

Schnorr sigs will deliver a more efficient way to deal with this stuff.
[...]
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.
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.

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.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!