Unencrypted blockchain leads to snooping

[jackjack]

I don't really get what your concerns really are. Please give a precise example of what you fear will happen.

[MoonShadow]

It is more effective. You could post the raw transactions on blockchain or brainwallet.org through your VPN and you'd essentially be anonymous. If someone makes an email-to-transaction-broadcast thingie, that works with OpenPGP, you could make truly anonymous transactions. Or if someone operates a hidden service (on TOR) that does this.

But, just using the plain reference client already allows you a certain anonymity, because you only broadcast your transaction to a limited number of nodes, and they relay it to the rest of the world.

I know for a fact that there are "quiet mode" full clients running on Tor that act as bridges from all Tor clients to the open Internet.  You have to use a full client, and it has to be "quiet mode" and well locked down to prevent leakage, but it's possible to transact in Bitcoin without leaving a mark.

[MoonShadow]

Please consider that TOR and vpns do not solve the problem.

If you access satoshidice through tor or vpn and allow google trackers to log you - which you HAVE TO in order to play - unless you are very, very careful to not leave a fingerprint, delete all cookies, flash cookies etc, not log in to read your email or do anything else during the session, chances are high that google knows exactly who you are.

If bitcoin is adopted en masse (and I still hope it does, I think), not too many people are going to take really serious precautions just to be anonymous.  The end result is that google, for instance, has access to the bank accounts for pretty much all transactions.  The rest it can consider suspicious.

Don't gamble on SatoshiDice?

[MoonShadow]

...
Even writing it down, I'm not conviced it can even work, as users must be able to trust the miners/supernodes and those miners would have to be able to trust each other.

Interesting that everyone jumped on me for being a DRM addict and not understanding anything for suggesting that the open blockchain is a security threat to individuals.  MoonShadow apparently is allowed to propose ideas that completely subvert the zero-trust nature of bitcoin.

Nonsense, I proposed a system that offers users a choice.  There is a significant difference.

[sigma02]

...
Even writing it down, I'm not conviced it can even work, as users must be able to trust the miners/supernodes and those miners would have to be able to trust each other.

Interesting that everyone jumped on me for being a DRM addict and not understanding anything for suggesting that the open blockchain is a security threat to individuals.  MoonShadow apparently is allowed to propose ideas that completely subvert the zero-trust nature of bitcoin.

Nonsense, I proposed a system that offers users a choice.  There is a significant difference.

Right. What did I propose, a system that forces privacy on you?

Ah, I see you just want to argue.  Topic closed.

[MoonShadow]

...
Even writing it down, I'm not conviced it can even work, as users must be able to trust the miners/supernodes and those miners would have to be able to trust each other.

Interesting that everyone jumped on me for being a DRM addict and not understanding anything for suggesting that the open blockchain is a security threat to individuals.  MoonShadow apparently is allowed to propose ideas that completely subvert the zero-trust nature of bitcoin.

Nonsense, I proposed a system that offers users a choice.  There is a significant difference.

Right. What did I propose, a system that forces privacy on you?

No, you proposed altering the blockchain to be encrypted, which as many have pointed out, would break the zero trust rule.  My alternative doesn't do any such thing, as I presented a method to do it outside of the main blockchain.  Furthermore, I've since discovered that some group has already annouced that they have developed a parrallel p2p netowrk to work with Bitcoin to do pretty much what I proposed, in practice, and intend to present the system at some upcoming confrence.  It's being called Zerocoin.

Ah, I see you just want to argue.  Topic closed.

You can decide to quit, but you can't close the topic from me.  I hope you learned something, at least.

[Aahzman]

You seem kinda paranoid.

Google is not the Cylons. Trust me. Number 6 told me so.

My father learned the hard way, in a concentration camp, that whenever someone makes a long list of people, things end badly.

Did you just compare the blockchain to the Nazis?

Dude, don't try to deliberately Godwin the thread.

[sigma02]

You seem kinda paranoid.

Google is not the Cylons. Trust me. Number 6 told me so.

My father learned the hard way, in a concentration camp, that whenever someone makes a long list of people, things end badly.

Did you just compare the blockchain to the Nazis?

Dude, don't try to deliberately Godwin the thread.

I compare the blockchain to a census list.  Keeping records has its hazards.

[MoonShadow]

You seem kinda paranoid.

Google is not the Cylons. Trust me. Number 6 told me so.

My father learned the hard way, in a concentration camp, that whenever someone makes a long list of people, things end badly.

Did you just compare the blockchain to the Nazis?

Dude, don't try to deliberately Godwin the thread.

I compare the blockchain to a census list.  Keeping records has its hazards.

A census list has names and addressses.

[sigma02]

...
Even writing it down, I'm not conviced it can even work, as users must be able to trust the miners/supernodes and those miners would have to be able to trust each other.

Interesting that everyone jumped on me for being a DRM addict and not understanding anything for suggesting that the open blockchain is a security threat to individuals.  MoonShadow apparently is allowed to propose ideas that completely subvert the zero-trust nature of bitcoin.

Nonsense, I proposed a system that offers users a choice.  There is a significant difference.

Right. What did I propose, a system that forces privacy on you?

No, you proposed altering the blockchain to be encrypted, which as many have pointed out, would break the zero trust rule.  My alternative doesn't do any such thing, as I presented a method to do it outside of the main blockchain.  Furthermore, I've since discovered that some group has already annouced that they have developed a parrallel p2p netowrk to work with Bitcoin to do pretty much what I proposed, in practice, and intend to present the system at some upcoming confrence.  It's being called Zerocoin.

Ah, I see you just want to argue.  Topic closed.

You can decide to quit, but you can't close the topic from me.  I hope you learned something, at least.

All right, since I can't close the topic from you, I did not propose any such thing.  Let's summarize:

I suggested that it is possible to encrypt transactions to keep them from prying eyes (which you think is a not a problem, apparently).
I asked a question: if it is possible to encrypt the blockchain (and here is my half-baked idea), why is it not encrypted
I pointed out that bitcoin transactions are less secure than an SSL web page when it comes to snooping.
I got answers like 'go start your own f**ng currency' or 'you are an idiot and know nothing about bitcoin and encryption'
EDIT: Oh, I forgot the 'I won't talk to you until you prove to me that you know every detail of bitcoin'.  I am asking a question.  Really?

This is a newbie thread and I am indeed a newbie.  I am not an adversary.  I am a strong supporter of bitcoin, actually.

Your responses have been rude, largely uninformed and argumentative.  I would suggest that you rethink how this board presents itself to the community.  

I hope that you learned something from this.

With all due respect, I have better things to do than have a pissing contest here.
Best wishes.

[Timo Y]

I was wondering, could homomorphic encryption be used to encrypt the block chain?

Wouldn't it allow transactions to be verified without needing to decrypt them first? Or am I missing something?

[mobodick]

I was wondering, could homomorphic encryption be used to encrypt the block chain?

Wouldn't it allow transactions to be verified without needing to decrypt them first? Or am I missing something?

Well, in theory it may work.
But the blockchain is such a centralized piece of information that any single weakness in its protection could give someone a lot of power. Better play in the open than risk a weakness that nobody knows of.

[niko]

I am perfectly comfortable with all transactions available in the ledger as open text.  The concerns stated in the OP are already valid without Bitcoin - powerful entities, from governments to corporations can and do track my spending behavior, and everyone else's. What bothers me is that I can't track theirs, and that I can't access the information they can about me and everyone else. Bitcoin is the way to make system more fair, and less panopticonish. A tool to empower the people. The problem is, people don't seem to be ready yet.

[MoonShadow]

...
Even writing it down, I'm not conviced it can even work, as users must be able to trust the miners/supernodes and those miners would have to be able to trust each other.

Interesting that everyone jumped on me for being a DRM addict and not understanding anything for suggesting that the open blockchain is a security threat to individuals.  MoonShadow apparently is allowed to propose ideas that completely subvert the zero-trust nature of bitcoin.

Nonsense, I proposed a system that offers users a choice.  There is a significant difference.

Right. What did I propose, a system that forces privacy on you?

No, you proposed altering the blockchain to be encrypted, which as many have pointed out, would break the zero trust rule.  My alternative doesn't do any such thing, as I presented a method to do it outside of the main blockchain.  Furthermore, I've since discovered that some group has already annouced that they have developed a parrallel p2p netowrk to work with Bitcoin to do pretty much what I proposed, in practice, and intend to present the system at some upcoming confrence.  It's being called Zerocoin.

Ah, I see you just want to argue.  Topic closed.

You can decide to quit, but you can't close the topic from me.  I hope you learned something, at least.

All right, since I can't close the topic from you, I did not propose any such thing.  Let's summarize:

I suggested that it is possible to encrypt transactions to keep them from prying eyes (which you think is a not a problem, apparently).
I asked a question: if it is possible to encrypt the blockchain (and here is my half-baked idea), why is it not encrypted
I pointed out that bitcoin transactions are less secure than an SSL web page when it comes to snooping.
I got answers like 'go start your own f**ng currency' or 'you are an idiot and know nothing about bitcoin and encryption'
EDIT: Oh, I forgot the 'I won't talk to you until you prove to me that you know every detail of bitcoin'.  I am asking a question.  Really?

This is a newbie thread and I am indeed a newbie.  I am not an adversary.  I am a strong supporter of bitcoin, actually.

Your responses have been rude, largely uninformed and argumentative.  I would suggest that you rethink how this board presents itself to the community.  

I hope that you learned something from this.

With all due respect, I have better things to do than have a pissing contest here.
Best wishes.

Those were not my responses, except the requirement that you prove you understand the topic before you propose sweeping changes.  You will find that I'm not alone in this regard.

[sigma02]

I was wondering, could homomorphic encryption be used to encrypt the block chain?

Wouldn't it allow transactions to be verified without needing to decrypt them first? Or am I missing something?

Well, in theory it may work.
But the blockchain is such a centralized piece of information that any single weakness in its protection could give someone a lot of power. Better play in the open than risk a weakness that nobody knows of.

If the encryption of individual transactions is compromised, the worst case is that someone could see a part of or the entire blockchain.   How would that give someone a lot of power? 

I think Timo is suggesting the same thing as I did: there is a way to use crypto to protect the actual transaction data and participants, leaving the details of verifying funding to the transaction participants and allowing the entire system to verify the validity of the transaction to avoid double spends and creation of money out of thin air.

[sigma02]

I am perfectly comfortable with all transactions available in the ledger as open text.  The concerns stated in the OP are already valid without Bitcoin - powerful entities, from governments to corporations can and do track my spending behavior, and everyone else's. What bothers me is that I can't track theirs, and that I can't access the information they can about me and everyone else. Bitcoin is the way to make system more fair, and less panopticonish. A tool to empower the people. The problem is, people don't seem to be ready yet.

Niko, I think you arrive at the wrong conclusion.  Sure they can see my bank statements with a warrant, which is a pain in the butt.  They may snoop on my connection but with SSL they can't see the content.  With bitcoin, they can have direct and immediate access to my financial information then and there, without access to third parties, just by snooping on me and referring to the public transaction log.

When I hear crap about money laun***ing with bitcoin, I am often amused.  You would have to really know your stuff to try that, since it's pretty much like sending postcards to the government about your transactions if you make even a simple miscalculation.

I don't think the system is any more fair than it would be if no one could see my transactions except me and the parties involved.  'I don't have anything to hide' argument against encryption is generally flawed.

[Dabs]

You can play Satoshi Dice without ever connecting to their website. But then you couldn't use their long-poll api. All you need are the addresses.

[niko]

I am perfectly comfortable with all transactions available in the ledger as open text.  The concerns stated in the OP are already valid without Bitcoin - powerful entities, from governments to corporations can and do track my spending behavior, and everyone else's. What bothers me is that I can't track theirs, and that I can't access the information they can about me and everyone else. Bitcoin is the way to make system more fair, and less panopticonish. A tool to empower the people. The problem is, people don't seem to be ready yet.

Niko, I think you arrive at the wrong conclusion.  Sure they can see my bank statements with a warrant, which is a pain in the butt.  They may snoop on my connection but with SSL they can't see the content.  With bitcoin, they can have direct and immediate access to my financial information then and there, without access to third parties, just by snooping on me and referring to the public transaction log.

When I hear crap about money laun***ing with bitcoin, I am often amused.  You would have to really know your stuff to try that, since it's pretty much like sending postcards to the government about your transactions if you make even a simple miscalculation.

I don't think the system is any more fair than it would be if no one could see my transactions except me and the parties involved.  'I don't have anything to hide' argument against encryption is generally flawed.

I guess we were talking about different "them." My credit card companies collect and share information about my spending habits. Getting them to stop is often harder than it is for a government to get a warrant. For example, every time they change the privacy policy, I need to learn about it and opt out, and in the mean time the info is shared around.