Bitcoin Forum
January 28, 2020, 04:32:04 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: .  (Read 39996 times)
coderrr
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7
Merit: 0


View Profile
.
June 30, 2011, 06:16:22 PM
Last edit: August 16, 2015, 10:21:27 PM by coderrr
 #1

.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1580229124
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1580229124

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1580229124
Reply with quote  #2

1580229124
Report to moderator
netrin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 250


FirstBits: 168Bc


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 06:42:11 PM
 #2

Hey guys I'm interested in getting people's thoughts on this.

- see all addresses, including change

- see which addresses are linked together (does recursive expansion of address linkages)

- select which address(es) to send from, rather than letting the client to chose for you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA_O6Boi7Xo

So what can you do about this? If you don’t have any Bitcoin yet then you can just make sure to use separate wallets for addresses you don’t want being mixed together.

That’s why I’ve made a patch to the official client which allows you to send from _only_ a single specific address.

I’ve added a ‘Send From Address’ tab to the main interface. It actually contains information which was impossible to get from the client before. That is, every address in your wallet and the balance thereof. This includes addresses which were created for the change of your outgoing transactions.

YES with a capital FANTASTIC!

I'm not even trying to be anonymous, but I still have a dozen wallets to keep track of 'accounts'. These patches bring us a long way toward personal financial control. I'd like to similarly be able to right click on a group of linked addresses and export them into a separate wallet... (as well as import wallets). I'm very happy to see all addresses, whether used in a transaction or not! Perhaps the ability to generate 'x' for the keypool buffer (and maybe delete unused addresses) would be handy.

I look forward to seeing your patch in the mainline along with encrypted keys!

Muchas gracias!

Greenlandic tupilak. Hand carved, traditional cursed bone figures. Sorry, polar bear, walrus and human remains not available for export.
netrin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 250


FirstBits: 168Bc


View Profile
July 13, 2011, 06:06:51 PM
 #3

I've repatched my changes onto v0.3.24rc1, see here: https://github.com/coderrr/bitcoin/commit/b32016a314bcbb15c97f14c733a8f49d43c5e8b2

I'll release new builds once the official v0.3.24 is released

I'm surprised this post generated so little chatter. Have you re-patched 0.3.24?

Greenlandic tupilak. Hand carved, traditional cursed bone figures. Sorry, polar bear, walrus and human remains not available for export.
Mike Hearn
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526
Merit: 1008


View Profile
July 13, 2011, 07:22:34 PM
 #4

I hadn't seen it before. It looks neat. I worry about UI complexity though. This is definitely a power user feature.
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 13, 2011, 08:01:04 PM
 #5

I'm an interested Windows user!
netrin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 250


FirstBits: 168Bc


View Profile
July 14, 2011, 01:26:14 AM
Last edit: July 14, 2011, 01:42:47 AM by netrin
 #6

I hadn't seen it before. It looks neat. I worry about UI complexity though. This is definitely a power user feature.

Well maybe, but I am driven batty by the opacity of the C++ client. Only the destination address is available (even if you double click the transaction). I find all the hidden features make it more complicated to use and understand.

Users don't understand why they should need to backup (again and again). They don't understand why it is not anonymous or how it could be. They don't understand 'copying' a wallet and certainly not the implications. I don't think users are dumb but the client is making them dumb. Even if a user never uses the 'addresses' tab, simply showing them their own addresses might produce an ah-ha moment.


Hey Coderrr, do you think you could release a 32-bit linux build?

Greenlandic tupilak. Hand carved, traditional cursed bone figures. Sorry, polar bear, walrus and human remains not available for export.
old_engineer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 387
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 14, 2011, 01:44:04 AM
 #7

I'm all for it!  This is exactly what seems to be needed.  Can this get into the main release as an "advanced" option selection?
QuantumMechanic
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 110
Merit: 14


View Profile
July 14, 2011, 02:03:55 AM
 #8

Can this get into the main release as an "advanced" option selection?
Was just about to say the same thing.
HostFat
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3248
Merit: 1093


I support freedom of choice


View Profile
July 14, 2011, 06:43:27 AM
 #9

Can you make a Pull Request?

NON DO ASSISTENZA PRIVATA - The Rock Trading (ref): A good exchange since 2007.
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 14, 2011, 07:42:23 AM
 #10

Says it's not a valid Win32 application...?
HostFat
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3248
Merit: 1093


I support freedom of choice


View Profile
July 14, 2011, 03:18:37 PM
 #11

It's better to put a pull request and see responses Wink

NON DO ASSISTENZA PRIVATA - The Rock Trading (ref): A good exchange since 2007.
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 14, 2011, 04:28:46 PM
 #12

This is very interesting... on my work computer's wallet, all addresses except for one are linked together.  Shocked  Haven't checked my home computer's wallet yet.
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 14, 2011, 04:32:52 PM
 #13

This is very interesting... on my work computer's wallet, all addresses except for one are linked together.  Shocked  Haven't checked my home computer's wallet yet.

Yes, welcome to bitcoin ;P
New challenge for you:  Reverse it, so that I can type in any address and find out what other addresses are associated with it.  Smiley
netrin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 250


FirstBits: 168Bc


View Profile
July 14, 2011, 05:08:04 PM
 #14

This is very interesting... on my work computer's wallet, all addresses except for one are linked together.  Shocked  Haven't checked my home computer's wallet yet.

Yes, welcome to bitcoin ;P

Hey Coderrr, how many transactions back makes a link? Are C and E linked?:

A -> B -> C

A -> D -> E

I'm asking because I've done a lot of work to 'force' this property by splitting my coins into multiple wallets. I might like to merge many of the wallets (with different keys) if the clients start to behave predictably.

Greenlandic tupilak. Hand carved, traditional cursed bone figures. Sorry, polar bear, walrus and human remains not available for export.
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 14, 2011, 06:55:08 PM
 #15

Question:  How do you know which address is the change address?
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 14, 2011, 07:02:50 PM
 #16

Question:  How do you know which address is the change address?

Your client knows which part of the transaction is the change because you own the key for that address.
Ahhhh, good point.  From the outside then, it would be much more difficult to 100% associate such addresses.
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 14, 2011, 07:19:11 PM
 #17

Question:  How do you know which address is the change address?

Your client knows which part of the transaction is the change because you own the key for that address.
Ahhhh, good point.  From the outside then, it would be much more difficult to 100% associate such addresses.

From the outside you have a 50/50 chance AT WORST assuming you're looking at a tx from an official bitcoin client.  My guess is most of the time you have a much better chance at guessing which part of the transaction is the change than 50/50.  For example, on a transaction where the payment is 1 BTC and the change is 2.0291 BTC, it's pretty obvious which part is the change.  I haven't done too much research on how often change amts are obvious but I just decided to be conservative and assume they're always identifiable.
Oh definitely - I won't disagree with you there.  But that's why I said 100%...

Still, that would be an interesting project to undertake.
QuantumMechanic
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 110
Merit: 14


View Profile
July 15, 2011, 12:10:54 AM
 #18

I'd like it be be in the main client, but I'd like it to be called "privacy mode", as opposed to "advanced view", for its educational effect. 

For further educational effect, privacy mode could enable informational warnings that let you know which addresses/identites are being linked during a transaction.

If address labels have multiple entries: identity, one to distinguish same-identity addresses, and an "Is Reused?" checkbox for send addresses that you know or expect get reused with multiple people, then the messages generated can be much more personalized and succinct, and will hit home better.

Imagine if when you tried to send some bitcoins you got a warning like this:

Quote
WARNING!

This transaction will reveal to

ShadyDude:

That you own 957 BTC minus the 2 you're currently sending to them, and that you received 955.5 of them from RichMistress on June 2, 2011 at 11:38 AM (for extra effect, assume her identity is public knowledge because you know she reuses addresses with multiple people Wink), and 1.5 from address 1B... on May 1, 2011 at 4:56 PM.

RichMistress:

That you're sending 2 BTC to address 1M... right now, and that you received 1.5 from address 1B... on May 1, 2011 at 4:56 PM.

Wife: 

That you're sending 2 BTC to address 1M... right now, and that you received 955.5 BTC from RichMistress on July 12, 2011 at 11:38 AM.

If this is too revealing, then use the Send To Address tab to manually select the addresses to send from.

Or maybe replace ShadyDude with Wikileaks' public address, and RichMistress with BusinessIPatronize (who happens to reuse the same address and needed to send you a refund one time, and who is now being subpoenaed by the Stasi into identifying you as the owner of the address the sent the refund to in order to prove you donated to Wikileaks).

Clearly address reuse is really bad for privacy, and the consequences are not internalized to the address re-users, so I think new address requests (and labeling) should be automated for all clients, not just privacy-conscious ones.

Sorry if this is obvious or flawed - I'm new to this stuff - but here's an idea for how to do this:

This can be done by having a contacts list, and a single master public key from each of their contacts, from which they can deterministically derive as many addresses as they want.  These addresses can't be associated by outsiders as long as the master public key is kept secret.  See this post by Stefan http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=19137.msg318989#msg318989 and the one below by gmaxwell about choosing a sequence of serial numbers for how it might be implemented: .

Of course lost master private keys will be a problem, but this can be mitigated by users having (untrusted) storage servers that serve the master public keys to their contacts (the same one that syncs your everyday-use wallet between devices?).  This way they can be easily changed at any time, all at once, and in one place, if necessary, and the contacts will always check that they're up to date.

Hopefully privacy mode would also turn on Tor as well.

Considering the "Bitcoin is anonymous" spin in the media, I really think we're going to have a lot of people unwittingly find themselves in a lot of trouble with criminals, spouses, friends, governments, etc. if they can't easily learn how Bitcoin is working for them in practice.  Somebody said here that users aren't stupid, but the client is making them stupid, and I completely agree.
Gavin Andresen
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1027


Chief Scientist


View Profile WWW
July 15, 2011, 12:55:23 AM
 #19

Does this patch give any sort of warning if bitcoin isn't being used through a proxy?

I worry that a user will be REALLY careful keeping all their addresses separated so their ordinary transactions are separate from their fund-the-oppositition transactions, and then will get busted by the Secret Police who were eavesdropping on their bitcoin IP traffic at their ISP.

How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
old_engineer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 387
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 15, 2011, 03:44:08 AM
 #20

Does this patch give any sort of warning if bitcoin isn't being used through a proxy?

I worry that a user will be REALLY careful keeping all their addresses separated so their ordinary transactions are separate from their fund-the-oppositition transactions, and then will get busted by the Secret Police who were eavesdropping on their bitcoin IP traffic at their ISP.


They're clearly separate issues that can be tackled one at a time.  This patch increases privacy with respect to all transaction partners, and those that can identify the transaction partners, but does not change anything with respect to eavesdroppers.  Which is fine - why conflate the two issues?
Gavin Andresen
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1027


Chief Scientist


View Profile WWW
July 15, 2011, 07:02:03 AM
 #21

why conflate the two issues?

Because to non-technical users, "privacy" is a single feature, not a series of separate technical issues.

How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3066
Merit: 1206



View Profile
July 15, 2011, 07:52:50 AM
Last edit: July 19, 2011, 07:18:20 AM by bitcoin_bug
 #22

Quote
Does this patch give any sort of warning if bitcoin isn't being used through a proxy?

It raises the valid question whether the satoshi bitcoin client should actually have some kind of warning/button/icon to indicate that it isn't being used through a proxy.

(I mean checking in the Options... is not hard but all browsers now have the little padlock icon when a secure SSL connection is active ... for example.)

figvam
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 17, 2011, 08:57:23 PM
 #23

Could you also compile a 32-bit Linux binary?
netrin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 250


FirstBits: 168Bc


View Profile
July 17, 2011, 11:01:43 PM
Last edit: July 18, 2011, 05:43:01 PM by netrin
 #24

why conflate the two issues?

Because to non-technical users, "privacy" is a single feature, not a series of separate technical issues.

Neither feature impacts nor increases the urgent need for the other and neither could claim to be the final "privacy" feature.

Could you also compile a 32-bit Linux binary?

I've failed to compile wxWidgets 2.9.2 and couldn't compile the patch with wxWidgets 2.8 on 32-bit Ubuntu 11.04  Cry

Greenlandic tupilak. Hand carved, traditional cursed bone figures. Sorry, polar bear, walrus and human remains not available for export.
ctoon6
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 251



View Profile
July 18, 2011, 06:48:02 PM
 #25

Does this patch give any sort of warning if bitcoin isn't being used through a proxy?

I worry that a user will be REALLY careful keeping all their addresses separated so their ordinary transactions are separate from their fund-the-oppositition transactions, and then will get busted by the Secret Police who were eavesdropping on their bitcoin IP traffic at their ISP.


I see what you're saying although I don't think that's really a fair criticism of the patch.  Obtaining any really high level of anonymity is a very complex endeavor that no patch alone will get you.

This patch and a tor patch and an integrated laundering patch would just about cover it.

It may even be worthwhile to make a network almost exactly like tor, except only for bitcoin.

Suggester
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 97
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 23, 2011, 01:39:35 PM
 #26

That's just excellent work. I'm surprised it generated so little buzz and isn't adopted into the official client until now.

On a separate note, Suggester suggests a Redistribute coins button, an option which moves all your funds to a chosen number of new wallets with the desired proportion of your current coins assigned for each. A user would then be able to consolidate his wealth from all his, say, 17 addresses into just 3 new ones, with the first one containing 49% of his coins, the second one 26%, and the third 25% (he will be able to assign those %'s arbitrarily using a simple interface). Similarly, he might want to break up his single wallet into, say, 4 different wallets, using them for 4 different purposes. When the transactions clear after 10 minutes, it'll be harder for anyone to prove that this user still owns the coins previously associated with his identity.

For the suggestion to be practical for anonymity purposes though, I strongly recommend another adjustable option where the user chooses how much time to assign for the whole operation. For example, choosing "63.2 hours" would move random chunks of the coins into their new distribution over that period of time (the client would have to be connected for the whole duration). That would make plausible deniability much stronger because you usually don't have 17 people simultaneously sending all their coins to 3 new addresses! If done correctly, it will be virtually impossible after that for anyone to prove that he still owns the coins. We're essentially simulating a change-of-ownership.

This can all be currently done using windows explorer and separate wallet files, but it'll be a big pain in the butt.
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 25, 2011, 08:27:46 PM
 #27

That's just excellent work. I'm surprised it generated so little buzz and isn't adopted into the official client until now.

On a separate note, Suggester suggests a Redistribute coins button, an option which moves all your funds to a chosen number of new wallets with the desired proportion of your current coins assigned for each. A user would then be able to consolidate his wealth from all his, say, 17 addresses into just 3 new ones, with the first one containing 49% of his coins, the second one 26%, and the third 25% (he will be able to assign those %'s arbitrarily using a simple interface). Similarly, he might want to break up his single wallet into, say, 4 different wallets, using them for 4 different purposes. When the transactions clear after 10 minutes, it'll be harder for anyone to prove that this user still owns the coins previously associated with his identity.

For the suggestion to be practical for anonymity purposes though, I strongly recommend another adjustable option where the user chooses how much time to assign for the whole operation. For example, choosing "63.2 hours" would move random chunks of the coins into their new distribution over that period of time (the client would have to be connected for the whole duration). That would make plausible deniability much stronger because you usually don't have 17 people simultaneously sending all their coins to 3 new addresses! If done correctly, it will be virtually impossible after that for anyone to prove that he still owns the coins. We're essentially simulating a change-of-ownership.

This can all be currently done using windows explorer and separate wallet files, but it'll be a big pain in the butt.
That would be a great feature of an online wallet website.  Just send funds with the parameters and addresses, and it'll all be done automatically by the site for a small fee.
cjp
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
November 14, 2011, 06:34:04 PM
 #28

I really need this patch! Is it available for version 0.4.0?

It doesn't seem to be in the standard client (0.4.0) yet. Why not? Sure, advertising it as an anonymity feature might give false expectations, but the same is true for the current client, since Bitcoin already has an anonymity reputation. This feature is not sufficient for complete anonymity, but it is a necessary (IMHO) component of a anonymous set-up, and as such it is a useful addition to the client. Sure, it adds complexity to the user interface (I haven't seen it yet), but this can easily be an 'optional' feature (and disabled by default), can't it?

Besides, I need it for a completely different reason: I want to manage several separated accounts, for an open source software development 'bounty' system (e.g., 'if you want to have this feature, send BTC to that address'). I want others to be able to see how much has been donated so far (or even how much they can receive if they implement the requested feature), so I don't want to accidentally spend bitcoins from the donation address.

Donate to: 1KNgGhVJx4yKupWicMenyg6SLoS68nA6S8
http://cornwarecjp.github.io/amiko-pay/
pointbiz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 433
Merit: 258

1ninja


View Profile
November 16, 2011, 03:14:25 AM
 #29

I really need this patch! Is it available for version 0.4.0?

It doesn't seem to be in the standard client (0.4.0) yet. Why not? Sure, advertising it as an anonymity feature might give false expectations, but the same is true for the current client, since Bitcoin already has an anonymity reputation. This feature is not sufficient for complete anonymity, but it is a necessary (IMHO) component of a anonymous set-up, and as such it is a useful addition to the client. Sure, it adds complexity to the user interface (I haven't seen it yet), but this can easily be an 'optional' feature (and disabled by default), can't it?

Besides, I need it for a completely different reason: I want to manage several separated accounts, for an open source software development 'bounty' system (e.g., 'if you want to have this feature, send BTC to that address'). I want others to be able to see how much has been donated so far (or even how much they can receive if they implement the requested feature), so I don't want to accidentally spend bitcoins from the donation address.


It's possible https://www.bitaddress.org  could be useful for you to create separate accounts which you won't accidentally spend.

Coder of: https://www.bitaddress.org      Thread
Open Source JavaScript Client-Side Bitcoin Wallet Generator
Donations: 1NiNja1bUmhSoTXozBRBEtR8LeF9TGbZBN   PGP
btc_artist
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100

Bitcoin!


View Profile WWW
November 17, 2011, 07:52:44 PM
 #30

TLDR: this patch allows you to:
- see all addresses, including change
- see which addresses are linked together (does recursive expansion of address linkages)
- select which address(es) to send from, rather than letting the client to chose for you
Very nice. I hadn't seen this before now.

why conflate the two issues?
Because to non-technical users, "privacy" is a single feature, not a series of separate technical issues.
You have an excellent point about how non-technical users view privacy.  But you have to take a series of small steps to achieve a larger goal.  In privacy mode, Google Chrome lists several ways your privacy could still be compromised, yet that didn't keep them from adding privacy mode.  This patch should be added to the official client, but will obviously not be the last privacy-related improvement to bitcoin.

I updated the code for 0.4 but never released builds since I didn't perceive any demand for them.  The code is now updated for the 0.5 qt gui so once 0.5 is officially released I'll release builds with my patch as well.
Awesome.  I'll patch 0.5 when I start using it.

BTC: 1CDCLDBHbAzHyYUkk1wYHPYmrtDZNhk8zf
LTC: LMS7SqZJnqzxo76iDSEua33WCyYZdjaQoE
cjp
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
November 17, 2011, 07:54:09 PM
 #31

It's possible https://www.bitaddress.org  could be useful for you to create separate accounts which you won't accidentally spend.
Thanks for the suggestion. Isn't it true that I can do the same with some Linux scripts? I think I've read something like that in another thread. I'd prefer that approach, since I don't really trust arbitrary websites. It might secretly remember the private keys of the generated addresses and its operators might decide to cash out as soon as a certain amount of money is stored on addresses generated by them.

Anyway, I think this still requires a patch in my Bitcoin client, so that I can later import the private key.

Quote
I updated the code for 0.4 but never released builds since I didn't perceive any demand for them.  The code is now updated for the 0.5 qt gui so once 0.5 is officially released I'll release builds with my patch as well.

I don't need builds; please give me an URL for the source code of the version 0.4 patch. I'll give your code a quick security review (so hopefully it won't be too large) and then I'll compile my own client.

Donate to: 1KNgGhVJx4yKupWicMenyg6SLoS68nA6S8
http://cornwarecjp.github.io/amiko-pay/
btc_artist
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100

Bitcoin!


View Profile WWW
November 17, 2011, 08:15:37 PM
 #32

I'd prefer that approach, since I don't really trust arbitrary websites. It might secretly remember the private keys of the generated addresses and its operators might decide to cash out as soon as a certain amount of money is stored on addresses generated by them.
bitaddress.org is designed so that you can download the HTML/JS file(s) and run them on an offline machine.  It's all done in Javascript client-side and nothing goes to the server.

BTC: 1CDCLDBHbAzHyYUkk1wYHPYmrtDZNhk8zf
LTC: LMS7SqZJnqzxo76iDSEua33WCyYZdjaQoE
netrin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 250


FirstBits: 168Bc


View Profile
November 18, 2011, 04:31:53 AM
 #33

I don't need builds; please give me an URL for the source code of the version 0.4 patch. I'll give your code a quick security review (so hopefully it won't be too large) and then I'll compile my own client.

From the OP:


Greenlandic tupilak. Hand carved, traditional cursed bone figures. Sorry, polar bear, walrus and human remains not available for export.
luv2drnkbr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 794
Merit: 1001



View Profile
November 24, 2011, 05:01:09 AM
 #34

Thank you!

0ni0ns
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 40
Merit: 0



View Profile
December 14, 2011, 08:43:18 PM
 #35

Any chance of a windows build of 0.5 with the patch?
phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1005


nmc:id/phelix


View Profile
December 15, 2011, 06:30:50 AM
 #36

Any chance of a windows build of 0.5 with the patch?

+1

blockchained.com ■ bitcointalk top posts
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1001



View Profile
December 15, 2011, 08:26:06 AM
 #37

Any chance of a windows build of 0.5 with the patch?

+1
+2
finway
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 500


View Profile
December 15, 2011, 08:48:59 AM
 #38

That's where needs really are.

mintymark
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 250


View Profile
December 15, 2011, 09:39:18 AM
 #39

I have to say that having read this, I am very disappointed. The anonymity available in bitcoin comes done to this: with special tools, a specialist will be able to violate the anonymity of anyone using the standard client. Shouldn't this be fixed at the protocol level? Perhaps by exchange of bitcoin amounts with random clients, these transactions might disguise legitimate transactions breaking the chain of address dependency.  This is not 'what it says on the box'!

Its true that eves-dropping is an issue, but its another issue, and in particular it requires action beforehand, while the blockchain is a permanent record, so can be analysed years afterwards to prove that I was sending money to more than one hot_lady!  (or whatever!)

Eves-dropping is an issue, but its not a reason for lack of action on this issue, Gavin, how could you imply such a thing? It sounds like an excuse for inaction.

While I really applaud the work of coderr and the Bitcoin authors, anonymity is a part of Bitcoins promise, this post makes it clear to me that for now at least, the past blockchain can be forensically analysed to reveal far more information than a casual user would expect. We need to see how we can deliver on this promise.


[[ All Tips gratefully received!!  ]]
15ta5d1N8mKkgC47SRWmnZABEFyP55RrqD
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1001



View Profile
December 15, 2011, 05:21:55 PM
 #40

I have to say that having read this, I am very disappointed. The anonymity available in bitcoin comes done to this: with special tools, a specialist will be able to violate the anonymity of anyone using the standard client. Shouldn't this be fixed at the protocol level? Perhaps by exchange of bitcoin amounts with random clients, these transactions might disguise legitimate transactions breaking the chain of address dependency.  This is not 'what it says on the box'!

Its true that eves-dropping is an issue, but its another issue, and in particular it requires action beforehand, while the blockchain is a permanent record, so can be analysed years afterwards to prove that I was sending money to more than one hot_lady!  (or whatever!)

Eves-dropping is an issue, but its not a reason for lack of action on this issue, Gavin, how could you imply such a thing? It sounds like an excuse for inaction.

While I really applaud the work of coderr and the Bitcoin authors, anonymity is a part of Bitcoins promise, this post makes it clear to me that for now at least, the past blockchain can be forensically analysed to reveal far more information than a casual user would expect. We need to see how we can deliver on this promise.
The bottom line is, Bitcoin should have never been advertised as being anonymous, because it simply isn't true.  At least, not with the default client.
kwukduck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1941
Merit: 1000


View Profile
December 16, 2011, 11:35:53 PM
Last edit: March 11, 2012, 02:16:01 PM by kwukduck
 #41

+9000

 I really wonder why this hasn't been adopted by the main client yet, anonymity is one of bitcoin's key aspects, yet every transaction potentially leaks a lot of addresses you don't wish to be associated with.

14b8PdeWLqK3yi3PrNHMmCvSmvDEKEBh3E
old_engineer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 387
Merit: 250


View Profile
December 17, 2011, 10:04:41 PM
 #42

+1 - it's not just for anonymity, it's also a look under the hood at addresses, which helps when explaining how bitcoin works.
Red Emerald
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500



View Profile WWW
December 18, 2011, 01:45:48 AM
Last edit: December 18, 2011, 07:56:43 AM by Red Emerald
 #43

Watching this.

This should really be made into a pull request

Red Emerald
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500



View Profile WWW
December 18, 2011, 07:21:36 PM
Last edit: December 18, 2011, 07:32:33 PM by Red Emerald
 #44

Watching this.

This should really be made into a pull request

from my last reply on this thread

Quote
Here is the pull request, +1 it if you guys want to see this patch get into core:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/415
Dunno how I missed that. Awesome.

Any help needed with testing? From reading the comments, it looks like that is all the pull request needs.

bccasino
Donator
Full Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 199
Merit: 100


YOU WIN . WE PAY


View Profile WWW
December 18, 2011, 08:35:38 PM
 #45

fantastic, ver 0.5.1 works great!

Thank you very much, this should really be part of the default client feature  Shocked

REASONS TO PLAY @ BC-CASINO.com

BEST CASINO SOFTWARE - PLAYER ANONYMITY - SAFE AND SECURE
K1773R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1008


/dev/null


View Profile
December 19, 2011, 06:01:28 AM
Last edit: December 19, 2011, 06:11:40 AM by K1773R
 #46

thanks alot Smiley

EDIT: you forgot to put bitcoind in the archive Wink
compiling on my own then Tongue

[GPG Public Key]  [Devcoin Builds]  [BBQCoin Builds]  [Multichain Blockexplorer]  [Multichain Blockexplorer - PoS Coins]  [Ufasoft Miner Linux Builds]
BTC/DVC/TRC/FRC: 1K1773RbXRZVRQSSXe9N6N2MUFERvrdu6y ANC/XPM AK1773RTmRKtvbKBCrUu95UQg5iegrqyeA NMC: NK1773Rzv8b4ugmCgX789PbjewA9fL9Dy1 LTC: LKi773RBuPepQH8E6Zb1ponoCvgbU7hHmd EMC: EK1773RxUes1HX1YAGMZ1xVYBBRUCqfDoF BQC: bK1773R1APJz4yTgRkmdKQhjhiMyQpJgfN
btc_artist
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100

Bitcoin!


View Profile WWW
December 19, 2011, 04:16:38 PM
 #47

+1 - it's not just for anonymity, it's also a look under the hood at addresses, which helps when explaining how bitcoin works.
This is an important aspect of it.

BTC: 1CDCLDBHbAzHyYUkk1wYHPYmrtDZNhk8zf
LTC: LMS7SqZJnqzxo76iDSEua33WCyYZdjaQoE
0ni0ns
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 40
Merit: 0



View Profile
January 04, 2012, 10:10:29 PM
 #48

I sometimes get a message saying error creating transaction when I want to empty an address and don't manually include the fee. This should probably be changed to the exceeds balance when fee is included message instead.
BrightAnarchist
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 853
Merit: 1000



View Profile
January 26, 2012, 10:25:08 PM
 #49

Okay... what am I doing wrong? I had Bitcoin 0.5.2 installed, and I copied the bitcoin-qt.exe from the patch over the original exe. I re-ran it, and verified it says version 0.5.1 now, but I don't see anything for "send from address".

Any ideas? Thanks!

used:

http://mtgoxlive.com/downloads/bitcoin-v0.5.1+coderrr-win32.zip

BrightAnarchist
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 853
Merit: 1000



View Profile
January 27, 2012, 03:03:44 AM
 #50

Thanks!

Great patch btw, it should be integrated into the main branch
kjj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1001



View Profile
January 28, 2012, 01:04:56 AM
 #51

When you spend bitcoins, you redeem transactions that were previously sent to you.  To redeem a transaction, you have to redeem the whole transaction.  So, the client looks through the database and finds a set of available transactions that add up to more than your spend attempt.  It then creates a new transaction that redeems all of the selected subset and transfers the balance to the destination address.  Unless the spend amount happens somehow to be exactly the total of the redeemed transactions, there will be change due.  This change is sent to a new address pulled from your wallet's spare key pool.

17Np17BSrpnHCZ2pgtiMNnhjnsWJ2TMqq8
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
Hawkix
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 529
Merit: 505



View Profile WWW
January 29, 2012, 01:23:20 AM
 #52

Can I "empty" several of my addresses to single, already existing, MY OWN address?

I am getting "Error: Transaction creation failed".

Can it be "not enough money on all specified addresses to take a required fee from it" problem?

Donations: 1Hawkix7GHym6SM98ii5vSHHShA3FUgpV6
http://btcportal.net/ - All about Bitcoin - coming soon!
BrightAnarchist
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 853
Merit: 1000



View Profile
January 29, 2012, 02:18:27 AM
 #53

Can I "empty" several of my addresses to single, already existing, MY OWN address?

I am getting "Error: Transaction creation failed".

Can it be "not enough money on all specified addresses to take a required fee from it" problem?

I also have the same issue.
Hawkix
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 529
Merit: 505



View Profile WWW
February 02, 2012, 02:48:20 PM
 #54

Can I "empty" several of my addresses to single, already existing, MY OWN address?

I am getting "Error: Transaction creation failed".

Can it be "not enough money on all specified addresses to take a required fee from it" problem?

yes, most likely the tx needs the 0.0005 fee, so transfer the total amount minus that fee and it should be fine

How about to show the "Fee needed" dialog in such a case instead of failing with an error?

Donations: 1Hawkix7GHym6SM98ii5vSHHShA3FUgpV6
http://btcportal.net/ - All about Bitcoin - coming soon!
BrightAnarchist
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 853
Merit: 1000



View Profile
February 10, 2012, 10:45:32 PM
 #55

Question -- how do I specify multiple source addresses for sending BTC?
marked
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100



View Profile
February 11, 2012, 02:22:47 PM
 #56

Question -- how do I specify multiple source addresses for sending BTC?

(even though it's probably CTRL-click, for the sake of completeness...)

Settings - options - display
check that Display advanced anonymity features is ticked
click OK

There should be a new tab between address book and export




Go to Send coins and look at the bottom where it says send from:



Click anonymity



click the address you want to send from, and it will highlight in blue.
CTRL-click to add more addresses.

go to Send coins, at the bottom you will see the selected address(es). You can delete or add addresses directly here, each address separated with a ; (semi-colon)



if there is insufficient funds in the selected addresses it will error and you will need to reduce the amount or  use another tab.

CTRL-clicking all addresses is equivalent to having none selected. ie the client will use up to all of the addresses that contain balances to calculate.

Don't forget that there is a tx fee for EACH address used, not one combined fee.

marked
mcorlett
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 250



View Profile
February 11, 2012, 02:53:19 PM
 #57

Can we have this rebased against 0.6?

Thanks.

marked
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100



View Profile
February 11, 2012, 03:05:43 PM
 #58

Can we have this rebased against 0.6?

Thanks.

Would be nice but isn't 0.6 still RC?

Also would like the ability to see tx fees as either a separate transaction linked to the send, or as a separate column.
something the can be done through the options |display.


marked
BrightAnarchist
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 853
Merit: 1000



View Profile
February 11, 2012, 09:25:36 PM
 #59

Question -- how do I specify multiple source addresses for sending BTC?

(even though it's probably CTRL-click, for the sake of completeness...)

Settings - options - display
check that Display advanced anonymity features is ticked
click OK

There should be a new tab between address book and export




Go to Send coins and look at the bottom where it says send from:



Click anonymity



click the address you want to send from, and it will highlight in blue.
CTRL-click to add more addresses.

go to Send coins, at the bottom you will see the selected address(es). You can delete or add addresses directly here, each address separated with a ; (semi-colon)



if there is insufficient funds in the selected addresses it will error and you will need to reduce the amount or  use another tab.

CTRL-clicking all addresses is equivalent to having none selected. ie the client will use up to all of the addresses that contain balances to calculate.

Don't forget that there is a tx fee for EACH address used, not one combined fee.

marked


Awesome! Thanks.
btc_artist
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100

Bitcoin!


View Profile WWW
February 13, 2012, 07:05:50 AM
 #60

Two questions--

1. On the screen where you choose the input transactions, could you display the "age" as well, so that you can easily choose older ones to avoid paying a tx fee?

2. Is this patch under any kind of consideration for inclusion in the mainline client?

BTC: 1CDCLDBHbAzHyYUkk1wYHPYmrtDZNhk8zf
LTC: LMS7SqZJnqzxo76iDSEua33WCyYZdjaQoE
mb300sd
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000

Drunk Posts


View Profile WWW
February 13, 2012, 07:26:25 AM
 #61

Being able to sort the input addresses would be nice.

1D7FJWRzeKa4SLmTznd3JpeNU13L1ErEco
kwukduck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1941
Merit: 1000


View Profile
February 16, 2012, 06:16:46 PM
 #62

Am i right in saying that this feature will not be supported by the official client?

Anyway, i thought it would be nice to have an additional feature that makes use of the new import/export keys command in 0.6rc1. If we could just rightclick the address from the anonymity tab and select export.
And a new button to import a key.

14b8PdeWLqK3yi3PrNHMmCvSmvDEKEBh3E
gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 2940
Merit: 3161



View Profile
February 17, 2012, 06:27:33 AM
 #63

Am i right in saying that this feature will not be supported by the official client?

I expect it to be at some point.
viper1092
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 13
Merit: 0


View Profile
February 17, 2012, 07:45:14 AM
 #64

This is the one reason I've been looking for alternative clients. I like the idea of controlling where it sends from. If this makes into the official build, I'd be totally convinced.

Any chance of a patched OS X binary? Smiley
HendrikJan
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 64
Merit: 10



View Profile
February 17, 2012, 08:31:55 AM
 #65

This is an eye opener for me and i hope it will make it into the official version.
I will follow this.

Referral link to a trading bot: https://www.cryptohopper.com/?atid=224
BrightAnarchist
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 853
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 15, 2012, 08:38:51 PM
 #66

Are you going to provide a patched build based off of Bitcoin 0.5.3?

many thanks

can't wait until they just merge this into the main tree!

Also, have you heard of this? From facebook group "Bitcoin P2P Cryptocurrency":

"Efforts are underway to make bitcoin transactions more anonymous.  Right now transactions are viewable using the blockchain.  However, the protocol could be changed such that an a anonymous transaction (not pseudo-anonymous) can prove it is valid by providing cryptographic proof of the validity of previous transactions.  If the developers succeed there will be no way to track bitcoins and it will be strongly anonymous."

http://wbl.github.com/bitcoinanon.pdf
BrightAnarchist
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 853
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 15, 2012, 08:39:52 PM
Last edit: March 16, 2012, 04:33:16 PM by BrightAnarchist
 #67

Also, please post a donation address so I can send you some btc for this feature - it has been extremely useful!
mb300sd
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000

Drunk Posts


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2012, 01:03:16 AM
 #68


any chance of a 5.3.1 binary?

1D7FJWRzeKa4SLmTznd3JpeNU13L1ErEco
wyager
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10



View Profile
March 17, 2012, 02:51:11 AM
 #69

This is exactly what I was looking for! I'll try to get this running on OS X.

ETA:I'm a Github noob, how do I download the source?

OTC-WoT: 1BWF66DuVqBCSFksUgkLtdYmHucpBgPmVm
jjjrmy
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 221
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 17, 2012, 04:04:26 AM
 #70

Amazing!
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3038
Merit: 1235


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
March 17, 2012, 01:48:29 PM
 #71

So isn't just going to the address level not quite enough?
e.g. shouldn't it be the transaction level for selecting inputs not just the address level?
Or does it already do that and I missed that comment somewhere?

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
Discord support invite at https://kano.is/ Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
wyager
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10



View Profile
March 17, 2012, 08:47:45 PM
 #72

OK, got it working! Very cool patch. Quick tip for OSX users who can't get it to compile: change the makefile.osx so it looks like this:
Code:
#CFLAGS=-mmacosx-version-min=10.5 -arch i386 -O3 \
LDFLAGS="-arch x86_64"
CFLAGS=-mmacosx-version-min=10.5 -arch x86_64 -O3 \

I don't think my install of Boost works with i386.

Which function do I use to check which accounts are tied together by transactions?

OTC-WoT: 1BWF66DuVqBCSFksUgkLtdYmHucpBgPmVm
dooglus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2758
Merit: 1210



View Profile
March 18, 2012, 04:50:58 PM
 #73

Is there a branch that merges cleanly to the official git master branch?  I get merge conflicts when I try.

Just-Dice                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   Play or Invest                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   1% House Edge
phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1005


nmc:id/phelix


View Profile
March 20, 2012, 09:13:55 AM
 #74

If you're on WINDOWS please use the new 0.5.3.1 build which has the patch for the recent vulnerability.

https://github.com/coderrr/bitcoin/downloads

If you use a previous version on WINDOWS you are in danger of being hacked and getting your wallet stolen.

does it work for everyone else? for me the anonymity tab does not show up with this version  Cry

blockchained.com ■ bitcointalk top posts
ptshamrock
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 484
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 20, 2012, 09:51:54 AM
 #75

works for me..check if u enabled it in settings of the qt client..isn`t called anonymity anymore..something with coinxxxx..Smiley

"Money needs to be depoliticized, and the time has come for the separation of money and state to be accomplished."
phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1005


nmc:id/phelix


View Profile
March 20, 2012, 11:43:51 AM
 #76

works for me..check if u enabled it in settings of the qt client..isn`t called anonymity anymore..something with coinxxxx..Smiley

oops, I completely forgot about that. thanks, pt!

is there any particular reason why it is not activated by default?

blockchained.com ■ bitcointalk top posts
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1022



View Profile
March 25, 2012, 05:01:36 AM
 #77

Coin Control is included in today's next-test release. Please give it a try!

kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3038
Merit: 1235


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
March 25, 2012, 05:49:38 AM
 #78

Coin Control is included in today's next-test release. Please give it a try!
As has been mentioned before and I mentioned in here recently (but got ignored), just going to address level is insufficient.
Selecting the source for a txn should be to transaction level.

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
Discord support invite at https://kano.is/ Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1005


nmc:id/phelix


View Profile
March 25, 2012, 09:18:19 AM
 #79

Coin Control is included in today's next-test release. Please give it a try!
As has been mentioned before and I mentioned in here recently (but got ignored), just going to address level is insufficient.
Selecting the source for a txn should be to transaction level.

is it not possible to achieve the same with coin control and a separate address for every transaction?

blockchained.com ■ bitcointalk top posts
mb300sd
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000

Drunk Posts


View Profile WWW
March 25, 2012, 07:43:26 PM
 #80

It would be nice to be able to sort by clicking the Address, Label, Balance, etc buttons. Should be a simple option of your using the standard controls.

1D7FJWRzeKa4SLmTznd3JpeNU13L1ErEco
Justin00
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 1000


★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice


View Profile
April 10, 2012, 12:02:58 PM
 #81

hmm i have been using version 6.0 in win32, have a  few addresses setup and what not.
I wanted to try your version of 5.3 but it ses my wallet is not compatible.

Not sure of the best approach to get it working. I imagine I can setup addresses in 5.3 and then use 6.0 to send the coins across and start using 5.3?? dunno if there is a better approach ?

thanks Smiley

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1022



View Profile
April 10, 2012, 01:03:03 PM
 #82

next-test should be compatible with 0.6.0, and has Coin Control

Serenata
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 251
Merit: 250



View Profile WWW
April 11, 2012, 10:06:54 AM
 #83

It should be mentioned elsewhere but what about an "Open Wallet..." function, for us keeping many different wallets?

BitcoinX.gr - To ελληνικό στέκι τoυ Bitcoin

My GPG Key
Justin00
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 1000


★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice


View Profile
April 14, 2012, 07:36:11 AM
 #84

Thanks I will test her out.

next-test should be compatible with 0.6.0, and has Coin Control

check_status
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100


Web Dev, Db Admin, Computer Technician


View Profile
May 10, 2012, 05:44:56 PM
 #85

Is this still being developed?

For Bitcoin to be a true global currency the value of BTC needs always to rise.
If BTC became the global currency & money supply = 100 Trillion then ⊅1.00 BTC = $4,761,904.76.
P2Pool Server List | How To's and Guides Mega List |  1EndfedSryGUZK9sPrdvxHntYzv2EBexGA
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1022



View Profile
May 10, 2012, 06:50:10 PM
 #86

Is this still being developed?
The latest version is still included in next-test.

Hawkix
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 529
Merit: 505



View Profile WWW
May 15, 2012, 06:07:47 AM
 #87

Please, could we get 0.6.2 with this "Coin control" merged in?

Donations: 1Hawkix7GHym6SM98ii5vSHHShA3FUgpV6
http://btcportal.net/ - All about Bitcoin - coming soon!
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1003


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
May 15, 2012, 06:15:30 AM
Last edit: May 15, 2012, 06:37:09 AM by CIYAM Pty. Ltd.
 #88

If the ability to specify a "change address" was also added to/included with coin control for release in the next version (i.e. 0.7.0) then I will gladly pay a bounty of 20 BTC to the author of the patch that is merged in (feel free to quote this for reference). Smiley


Cheers,

Ian.

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1022



View Profile
May 15, 2012, 06:42:09 AM
 #89

Please, could we get 0.6.2 with this "Coin control" merged in?
The latest next-test is secure.

Ente
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2126
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 19, 2012, 09:43:48 AM
 #90

Please, could we get 0.6.2 with this "Coin control" merged in?
The latest next-test is secure.

Can't wait for it to be merged in the mainline client!

Ente
phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1005


nmc:id/phelix


View Profile
June 19, 2012, 10:34:22 AM
 #91

Please, could we get 0.6.2 with this "Coin control" merged in?
The latest next-test is secure.

Can't wait for it to be merged in the mainline client!

Ente
+1

blockchained.com ■ bitcointalk top posts
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3038
Merit: 1235


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
June 19, 2012, 10:55:42 AM
 #92

... and fixed so you can specify transactions, not just addresses.

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
Discord support invite at https://kano.is/ Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1022



View Profile
June 19, 2012, 03:21:41 PM
 #93

Can't wait for it to be merged in the mainline client!
As of right now, that probably won't be happening. There's a lot of cleanup needed before it can be merged, and both coderrr and dooglus who were maintaining it seem to have lost interest. I've been rebasing it for next-test, and Diapolo is trying to clean up the GUI code, but it still needs someone to clean up the internals.

phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1005


nmc:id/phelix


View Profile
June 24, 2012, 02:04:33 PM
 #94

... and fixed so you can specify transactions, not just addresses.

Coin Control is included in today's next-test release. Please give it a try!
As has been mentioned before and I mentioned in here recently (but got ignored), just going to address level is insufficient.
Selecting the source for a txn should be to transaction level.

is it not possible to achieve the same with coin control and a separate address for every transaction?

?

blockchained.com ■ bitcointalk top posts
phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1005


nmc:id/phelix


View Profile
June 24, 2012, 02:06:43 PM
 #95

a feature that sets the transfer amount to all coins in the selected address minus fee would be nice. currently it's a pita to empty an address.


blockchained.com ■ bitcointalk top posts
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3038
Merit: 1235


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
June 24, 2012, 11:52:27 PM
 #96

a feature that sets the transfer amount to all coins in the selected address minus fee would be nice. currently it's a pita to empty an address.

It seems that knowing the fee in advance is beyond bitcoin.

This an issue that has been ignored or argued not possible for a VERY long time, every time it comes up, since there are some variables in the calculation that change over time I imagine is the excuse.

... what's that old timers term ... 2 phase commit ... not used much these days ...

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
Discord support invite at https://kano.is/ Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3038
Merit: 1235


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
June 24, 2012, 11:59:11 PM
 #97

... and fixed so you can specify transactions, not just addresses.

Coin Control is included in today's next-test release. Please give it a try!
As has been mentioned before and I mentioned in here recently (but got ignored), just going to address level is insufficient.
Selecting the source for a txn should be to transaction level.

is it not possible to achieve the same with coin control and a separate address for every transaction?

?
So for the average joe's wallet that might want to use this to choose transactions or addresses, it's no good since you have to have done this from the start and always remember to do it that way?

My point being that your saying that this is only of use to people who have anonymity issues, rather than also for those who wish to have control over certain transactions
i.e. going one more level is as far as is possible with selecting sources for a transaction - and why not allow that? Why stop early?

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
Discord support invite at https://kano.is/ Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
Gavin Andresen
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1027


Chief Scientist


View Profile WWW
June 25, 2012, 12:45:17 AM
 #98

As has been mentioned before and I mentioned in here recently (but got ignored), just going to address level is insufficient.
Selecting the source for a txn should be to transaction level.
See the raw transaction API I've been working on, and please help try to break it-- it needs more testing.

The main motivation is to move forward with multisignature transactions, but it also lets you have complete control over the source(s) for a transaction.

How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1003


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
June 25, 2012, 06:53:02 AM
 #99

See the raw transaction API I've been working on, and please help try to break it-- it needs more testing.

The main motivation is to move forward with multisignature transactions, but it also lets you have complete control over the source(s) for a transaction.

This looks interesting - just one question after reading this document (as the word "change" does not appear in it at all) - will it be also possible to specify the *change* address with such "raw transactions" (in perhaps the sendrawtx command itself)?

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1005


nmc:id/phelix


View Profile
June 25, 2012, 09:40:59 AM
 #100

a feature that sets the transfer amount to all coins in the selected address minus fee would be nice. currently it's a pita to empty an address.

It seems that knowing the fee in advance is beyond bitcoin.

This an issue that has been ignored or argued not possible for a VERY long time, every time it comes up, since there are some variables in the calculation that change over time I imagine is the excuse.

... what's that old timers term ... 2 phase commit ... not used much these days ...

I never understood why the fee calculation has to bee so complicated...  age of coins - wtf why?


blockchained.com ■ bitcointalk top posts
phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1005


nmc:id/phelix


View Profile
June 25, 2012, 09:41:37 AM
 #101

... and fixed so you can specify transactions, not just addresses.

Coin Control is included in today's next-test release. Please give it a try!
As has been mentioned before and I mentioned in here recently (but got ignored), just going to address level is insufficient.
Selecting the source for a txn should be to transaction level.

is it not possible to achieve the same with coin control and a separate address for every transaction?

?
So for the average joe's wallet that might want to use this to choose transactions or addresses, it's no good since you have to have done this from the start and always remember to do it that way?

My point being that your saying that this is only of use to people who have anonymity issues, rather than also for those who wish to have control over certain transactions
i.e. going one more level is as far as is possible with selecting sources for a transaction - and why not allow that? Why stop early?

maybe not stop but take one step after the other.

blockchained.com ■ bitcointalk top posts
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3038
Merit: 1235


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
June 25, 2012, 02:21:32 PM
 #102

As has been mentioned before and I mentioned in here recently (but got ignored), just going to address level is insufficient.
Selecting the source for a txn should be to transaction level.
See the raw transaction API I've been working on, and please help try to break it-- it needs more testing.

The main motivation is to move forward with multisignature transactions, but it also lets you have complete control over the source(s) for a transaction.

Yep sounds good - with that in there, tools like this will become simpler code calling your API.

However, as mentioned above, the issue of fees is still outstanding - which does relate VERY closely to this.

If you are selecting addresses or transactions to make up a transaction, you need to know the fees involved also.
What I was referring to further up was to simply have a 2 phase call to this process.
Phase 1 tells you the fee for your txn
Then phase 2 you send a modified txn with fee and it says yes it works, or replies with a new fee if it changed.
... well something like that anyway.
(not a 2 phase commit in database terms, but a 2 step commit)

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
Discord support invite at https://kano.is/ Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
Gavin Andresen
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1027


Chief Scientist


View Profile WWW
June 25, 2012, 03:22:10 PM
 #103

However, as mentioned above, the issue of fees is still outstanding - which does relate VERY closely to this.
Determining the "right" fees is a separate issue; see https://gist.github.com/2961409  for my current thinking.

The raw transaction API will let you create and try to send a transaction with as much or little fees as you like, but if you try to send a 20 kilobyte transaction with zero fees you shouldn't be surprised if nobody relays or mines it.

This looks interesting - just one question after reading this document (as the word "change" does not appear in it at all) - will it be also possible to specify the *change* address with such "raw transactions" (in perhaps the sendrawtx command itself)?

If you use the raw transaction API then you're responsible for saying exactly where all of the outputs go.  If you create a raw transaction with a 50 BTC input and a 2 BTC output then that is a no-change, 48 BTC fee transaction.  If you don't intend the 48 BTC to go to miners, then you need to specify where the change goes by adding another output.

I suppose the RPC calls could have limits to try to keep you from shooting yourself in the foot, but anybody using the raw transaction API should be doing a lot of testing with worthless testnet coins and I'd rather not start playing the "lets write lots of code to try to prevent RPC-users from being dumb" game.


How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
49er
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 52
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 25, 2012, 03:25:05 PM
 #104

This interests me.  Not the anonymity aspect, but the fine grain control per address.  I prefer this to opening and closing multiple wallets, which feels like a clumsy approach.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1022



View Profile
June 25, 2012, 03:28:09 PM
 #105

This interests me.  Not the anonymity aspect, but the fine grain control per address.  I prefer this to opening and closing multiple wallets, which feels like a clumsy approach.
I this the current multi-wallet plan allows for having multiple open concurrently.

CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1003


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
June 25, 2012, 03:29:26 PM
 #106

If you use the raw transaction API then you're responsible for saying exactly where all of the outputs go.  If you create a raw transaction with a 50 BTC input and a 2 BTC output then that is a no-change, 48 BTC fee transaction.  If you don't intend the 48 BTC to go to miners, then you need to specify where the change goes by adding another output.

Okay - thanks - I get it now - and yes I think that this will be of great benefit for the development of other clients that sit above bitcoind (or just for "power" users of the RPC interface).

Smiley

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
49er
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 52
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 25, 2012, 03:44:24 PM
 #107

This interests me.  Not the anonymity aspect, but the fine grain control per address.  I prefer this to opening and closing multiple wallets, which feels like a clumsy approach.
I this the current multi-wallet plan allows for having multiple open concurrently.
You that?  Wink

While I'm sure there are special use cases where it's the better option, I still feel multiple wallets is overkill when one will do for most people.  I also can't help but think the multiple "accounts" per wallet introduced in 0.3.18 should have covered most of the multiple wallet use cases.  I would have expected this in the GUI before the more heavyweight multi-wallet changes.
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
June 26, 2012, 09:54:59 AM
 #108

* ShadowOfHarbringer is watching this.

EnergyVampire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100



View Profile
June 26, 2012, 10:49:34 AM
 #109

Interesting...

gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 2940
Merit: 3161



View Profile
June 26, 2012, 11:55:32 AM
Last edit: June 26, 2012, 12:11:21 PM by gmaxwell
 #110

I never understood why the fee calculation has to bee so complicated...  age of coins - wtf why?

The question:

How can we have free transactions, but not make it possible for someone to cheaply DOS the system into oblivion by simply typing "while true; do bitcoind sendtoaddress `bitcoind getnewaddress` 0.00000001 ; done" ?

To solve this we ask:  What characterizes that kind of activity which is distinct from normal usage?    We can't tell that the DOS transactions are all coming from a single party because they can just use many addresses.  We can't really single out smallish transactions because regular users make small transactions and the attack would work just as well even it was moving 50 BTC in each transaction. What characterizes them is that they're rapidly moving the same coins over and over again.

Bitcoin days destroyed is a simple metric that measures coin velocity, and it's basically what the prioritiy system uses.  Sum(input_values * input_ages) / tx_data_size = priority.

Our priority system in effect uses the transaction's Bitcoin days destroyed to pay for them— evidence that the user isn't engaging in a maximum speed coin recycling— in lieu of fees.  The metric is directly connected to real DOS attack behavior, it doesn't depend on the impossible task of distinguishing users, it doesn't disproportionally penalize low value transactions, it expends a real scarce resource (though not one that users consider otherwise valuable), it doesn't actively encourage bad behavior, and it's demonstratively effective. If you don't have enough priority or pay a fee peer nodes will not relay your transaction, miners will not mine it— not until it does have enough priority via aging.

With this metric an attacker is required to have an enormous and near unending supply of unmoved coin in order to sustain an attack or they must spend on fees (or con some suckers into paying fees for them).

The downsides are that it can be a bit inexplicable for the users— "you can't make a free txn now, but you can after the next block??", which is made worse by the fact that the reference software doesn't really try to construct transactions in a way that avoids fees— and more complicated to find _optimal_ coin selections with this metric (it makes the objective non-linear). But otherwise it's a pretty excellent metric.
Ente
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2126
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 26, 2012, 12:25:57 PM
 #111

I never understood why the fee calculation has to bee so complicated...  age of coins - wtf why?

The question:

How can we have free transactions, but not make it possible for someone to cheaply DOS the system into oblivion by simply typing "while true; do bitcoind sendtoaddress `bitcoind getnewaddress` 0.00000001 ; done" ?

To solve this we ask:  What characterizes that kind of activity which is distinct from normal usage?    We can't tell that the DOS transactions are all coming from a single party because they can just use many addresses.  We can't really single out smallish transactions because regular users make small transactions and the attack would work just as well even it was moving 50 BTC in each transaction. What characterizes them is that they're rapidly moving the same coins over and over again.

Bitcoin days destroyed is a simple metric that measures coin velocity, and it's basically what the prioritiy system uses.  Sum(input_values * input_ages) / tx_data_size = priority.

Our priority system in effect uses the transaction's Bitcoin days destroyed to pay for them— evidence that the user isn't engaging in a maximum speed coin recycling— in lieu of fees.  The metric is directly connected to real DOS attack behavior, it doesn't depend on the impossible task of distinguishing users, it doesn't disproportionally penalize low value transactions, it expends a real scarce resource (though not one that users consider otherwise valuable), it doesn't actively encourage bad behavior, and it's demonstratively effective. If you don't have enough priority or pay a fee peer nodes will not relay your transaction, miners will not mine it— not until it does have enough priority via aging.

With this metric an attacker is required to have an enormous and near unending supply of unmoved coin in order to sustain an attack or they must spend on fees (or con some suckers into paying fees for them).

The downsides are that it can be a bit inexplicable for the users— "you can't make a free txn now, but you can after the next block??", which is made worse by the fact that the reference software doesn't really try to construct transactions in a way that avoids fees— and more complicated to find _optimal_ coin selections with this metric (it makes the objective non-linear). But otherwise it's a pretty excellent metric.


Your question answered many of my questions regarding transactions, forwarding, fees and DOS.
Thank you.

Ente
Red Emerald
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500



View Profile WWW
June 27, 2012, 06:33:45 PM
 #112

I never understood why the fee calculation has to bee so complicated...  age of coins - wtf why?

The question:

How can we have free transactions, but not make it possible for someone to cheaply DOS the system into oblivion by simply typing "while true; do bitcoind sendtoaddress `bitcoind getnewaddress` 0.00000001 ; done" ?

To solve this we ask:  What characterizes that kind of activity which is distinct from normal usage?    We can't tell that the DOS transactions are all coming from a single party because they can just use many addresses.  We can't really single out smallish transactions because regular users make small transactions and the attack would work just as well even it was moving 50 BTC in each transaction. What characterizes them is that they're rapidly moving the same coins over and over again.

Bitcoin days destroyed is a simple metric that measures coin velocity, and it's basically what the prioritiy system uses.  Sum(input_values * input_ages) / tx_data_size = priority.

Our priority system in effect uses the transaction's Bitcoin days destroyed to pay for them— evidence that the user isn't engaging in a maximum speed coin recycling— in lieu of fees.  The metric is directly connected to real DOS attack behavior, it doesn't depend on the impossible task of distinguishing users, it doesn't disproportionally penalize low value transactions, it expends a real scarce resource (though not one that users consider otherwise valuable), it doesn't actively encourage bad behavior, and it's demonstratively effective. If you don't have enough priority or pay a fee peer nodes will not relay your transaction, miners will not mine it— not until it does have enough priority via aging.

With this metric an attacker is required to have an enormous and near unending supply of unmoved coin in order to sustain an attack or they must spend on fees (or con some suckers into paying fees for them).

The downsides are that it can be a bit inexplicable for the users— "you can't make a free txn now, but you can after the next block??", which is made worse by the fact that the reference software doesn't really try to construct transactions in a way that avoids fees— and more complicated to find _optimal_ coin selections with this metric (it makes the objective non-linear). But otherwise it's a pretty excellent metric.


Your question answered many of my questions regarding transactions, forwarding, fees and DOS.
Thank you.

Ente
This is a great explanation. I'm going to put this on the wiki.

EDIT: Or not. I've forgotten my wiki password. I guess I'll do it later Tongue

phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1005


nmc:id/phelix


View Profile
June 30, 2012, 04:50:59 AM
 #113

I never understood why the fee calculation has to bee so complicated...  age of coins - wtf why?

The question:

How can we have free transactions, but not make it possible for someone to cheaply DOS the system into oblivion by simply typing "while true; do bitcoind sendtoaddress `bitcoind getnewaddress` 0.00000001 ; done" ?

To solve this we ask:  What characterizes that kind of activity which is distinct from normal usage?    We can't tell that the DOS transactions are all coming from a single party because they can just use many addresses.  We can't really single out smallish transactions because regular users make small transactions and the attack would work just as well even it was moving 50 BTC in each transaction. What characterizes them is that they're rapidly moving the same coins over and over again.

Bitcoin days destroyed is a simple metric that measures coin velocity, and it's basically what the prioritiy system uses.  Sum(input_values * input_ages) / tx_data_size = priority.

Our priority system in effect uses the transaction's Bitcoin days destroyed to pay for them— evidence that the user isn't engaging in a maximum speed coin recycling— in lieu of fees.  The metric is directly connected to real DOS attack behavior, it doesn't depend on the impossible task of distinguishing users, it doesn't disproportionally penalize low value transactions, it expends a real scarce resource (though not one that users consider otherwise valuable), it doesn't actively encourage bad behavior, and it's demonstratively effective. If you don't have enough priority or pay a fee peer nodes will not relay your transaction, miners will not mine it— not until it does have enough priority via aging.

With this metric an attacker is required to have an enormous and near unending supply of unmoved coin in order to sustain an attack or they must spend on fees (or con some suckers into paying fees for them).

The downsides are that it can be a bit inexplicable for the users— "you can't make a free txn now, but you can after the next block??", which is made worse by the fact that the reference software doesn't really try to construct transactions in a way that avoids fees— and more complicated to find _optimal_ coin selections with this metric (it makes the objective non-linear). But otherwise it's a pretty excellent metric.


Your question answered many of my questions regarding transactions, forwarding, fees and DOS.
Thank you.

Ente
This is a great explanation. I'm going to put this on the wiki.

EDIT: Or not. I've forgotten my wiki password. I guess I'll do it later Tongue
thanks for the nice explanation and +1 to putting it into the wiki.

still this seems overengineered to me. what does somebody moving a large pile of coins once a year care about a 0.01btc fee? also it complicates emptying of addresses and I imagine the decision of pools to delay/not include free txs.

blockchained.com ■ bitcointalk top posts
zebedee
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 668
Merit: 500



View Profile
July 07, 2012, 05:45:38 AM
 #114

I don't think anyone has said it yet, so I'll just point out that this feature is available in the electrum client - you can prioritize addresses that you received at for a payment.  In particular, if you prioritize an address that received more than you're sending, you can be sure that only that address is used for the payment.
N.Z.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 430
Merit: 250



View Profile
July 07, 2012, 08:58:22 PM
 #115

Strange things are happening to this useful patch. Author and followers abandon support for it constantly. More than a year has passed, but there is nothing about it in official client, even "experimental" and "for advanced use only". WTF...

P.S. Just my 0.02 btc, nevermind Smiley
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
July 07, 2012, 09:14:12 PM
 #116

Strange things are happening to this useful patch. Author and followers abandon support for it constantly. More than a year has passed, but there is nothing about it in official client, even "experimental" and "for advanced use only". WTF...

P.S. Just my 0.02 btc, nevermind Smiley

Actually i remember reading somewhere that this will be implemented in 0.7.
Am I wrong ?

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1022



View Profile
July 07, 2012, 09:45:41 PM
 #117

Strange things are happening to this useful patch. Author and followers abandon support for it constantly. More than a year has passed, but there is nothing about it in official client, even "experimental" and "for advanced use only". WTF...

P.S. Just my 0.02 btc, nevermind Smiley

Actually i remember reading somewhere that this will be implemented in 0.7.
Am I wrong ?
No, since the author and subsequent maintainer have both abandoned it, there is nobody to address the problems still left unresolved. Until that happens, it will not likely be merged. For the time being, I am keeping it minimally up to date for my next-test branches.

ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
July 07, 2012, 11:44:53 PM
 #118

Strange things are happening to this useful patch. Author and followers abandon support for it constantly. More than a year has passed, but there is nothing about it in official client, even "experimental" and "for advanced use only". WTF...

P.S. Just my 0.02 btc, nevermind Smiley

Actually i remember reading somewhere that this will be implemented in 0.7.
Am I wrong ?
No (...)

BTW, You just did a double-negative answer which could be understood by me as "yes you are right" Tongue

(Just fooling around here, don't mind me)

phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1005


nmc:id/phelix


View Profile
July 09, 2012, 07:47:13 AM
 #119

I don't think anyone has said it yet, so I'll just point out that this feature is available in the electrum client - you can prioritize addresses that you received at for a payment.  In particular, if you prioritize an address that received more than you're sending, you can be sure that only that address is used for the payment.
interesting...

blockchained.com ■ bitcointalk top posts
phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1005


nmc:id/phelix


View Profile
September 24, 2012, 02:08:16 PM
 #120

Strange things are happening to this useful patch. Author and followers abandon support for it constantly. More than a year has passed, but there is nothing about it in official client, even "experimental" and "for advanced use only". WTF...

P.S. Just my 0.02 btc, nevermind Smiley

Actually i remember reading somewhere that this will be implemented in 0.7.
Am I wrong ?
No, since the author and subsequent maintainer have both abandoned it, there is nobody to address the problems still left unresolved. Until that happens, it will not likely be merged. For the time being, I am keeping it minimally up to date for my next-test branches.
like here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=100390.0

thanks luke!

blockchained.com ■ bitcointalk top posts
pretendo
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10



View Profile
September 24, 2012, 05:12:44 PM
 #121

I support this

My attempt at adding to the bitcoin-using marketplace: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=171843.0
Like online video games? Check it out! I'm selling at a big discount
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3066
Merit: 1206



View Profile
September 24, 2012, 11:25:55 PM
 #122

Good luck Luke-jr.

However, I think you are probably thrashing a dead horse since both Gavin A. and Jeff G. have indicated they will defend bitcoin's current level of traceability.

kjj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1001



View Profile
September 25, 2012, 12:04:44 AM
 #123

Good luck Luke-jr.

However, I think you are probably thrashing a dead horse since both Gavin A. and Jeff G. have indicated they will defend bitcoin's current level of traceability.

Did I miss something, or are you just trolling?

17Np17BSrpnHCZ2pgtiMNnhjnsWJ2TMqq8
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1022



View Profile
September 25, 2012, 04:36:33 AM
 #124

However, I think you are probably thrashing a dead horse since both Gavin A. and Jeff G. have indicated they will defend bitcoin's current level of traceability.
So will I*. But I don't think any of us consider Coin Control to have much to do with traceability. I don't personally care about Coin Control either, which is why I've only been minimally keeping it up to date, not doing the proper maintenance it needs to get merged.

* Not to say there aren't things that could make Bitcoin less traceable for real, that could be accepted for other good reasons.

Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


Wat


View Profile WWW
September 25, 2012, 05:06:01 AM
 #125

Good luck Luke-jr.

However, I think you are probably thrashing a dead horse since both Gavin A. and Jeff G. have indicated they will defend bitcoin's current level of traceability.

And why would they want that ?

Gavin Andresen
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1027


Chief Scientist


View Profile WWW
September 25, 2012, 01:18:15 PM
 #126

Yeah, where did I say that?

Oops, edited, I forgot about my "don't feed the trolls" rule.

How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1005


nmc:id/phelix


View Profile
September 25, 2012, 09:04:33 PM
 #127

Good luck Luke-jr.

However, I think you are probably thrashing a dead horse since both Gavin A. and Jeff G. have indicated they will defend bitcoin's current level of traceability.

Pictures or it never happened.

Of course there are plenty of disadvantages to coin control / sendfromaddress. Above all it makes bitcoin much more of a hassle to use.
But I think we somehow have to deal with this linkability issue. At least people using Bitcoin have to know about it, transparency is very important here. The patch lets people see what bitcoin really is currently.

I don't want Bitcoin to end up like the Royal Canadian Mint's Mintchip marketing vote incident.


blockchained.com ■ bitcointalk top posts
N.Z.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 430
Merit: 250



View Profile
October 13, 2012, 08:52:08 PM
 #128

Gavin, if we, those who are interested in this function, provide our interest by donations to you or other developer, is there a chance that you will make this patch happen sooner?
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
October 13, 2012, 10:58:52 PM
 #129

Gavin, if we, those who are interested in this function, provide our interest by donations to you or other developer, is there a chance that you will make this patch happen sooner?

+5 BTC

I join the question and pledge 5 BTC if anybody would want to finish it sooner.


phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1005


nmc:id/phelix


View Profile
October 13, 2012, 11:09:39 PM
 #130

multibit with multiple wallets might be an alternative

blockchained.com ■ bitcointalk top posts
K1773R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1008


/dev/null


View Profile
October 29, 2012, 09:07:42 AM
 #131

this is still a problem...

[GPG Public Key]  [Devcoin Builds]  [BBQCoin Builds]  [Multichain Blockexplorer]  [Multichain Blockexplorer - PoS Coins]  [Ufasoft Miner Linux Builds]
BTC/DVC/TRC/FRC: 1K1773RbXRZVRQSSXe9N6N2MUFERvrdu6y ANC/XPM AK1773RTmRKtvbKBCrUu95UQg5iegrqyeA NMC: NK1773Rzv8b4ugmCgX789PbjewA9fL9Dy1 LTC: LKi773RBuPepQH8E6Zb1ponoCvgbU7hHmd EMC: EK1773RxUes1HX1YAGMZ1xVYBBRUCqfDoF BQC: bK1773R1APJz4yTgRkmdKQhjhiMyQpJgfN
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
October 30, 2012, 08:31:50 AM
 #132

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

K1773R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1008


/dev/null


View Profile
October 30, 2012, 09:07:19 AM
 #133

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!

[GPG Public Key]  [Devcoin Builds]  [BBQCoin Builds]  [Multichain Blockexplorer]  [Multichain Blockexplorer - PoS Coins]  [Ufasoft Miner Linux Builds]
BTC/DVC/TRC/FRC: 1K1773RbXRZVRQSSXe9N6N2MUFERvrdu6y ANC/XPM AK1773RTmRKtvbKBCrUu95UQg5iegrqyeA NMC: NK1773Rzv8b4ugmCgX789PbjewA9fL9Dy1 LTC: LKi773RBuPepQH8E6Zb1ponoCvgbU7hHmd EMC: EK1773RxUes1HX1YAGMZ1xVYBBRUCqfDoF BQC: bK1773R1APJz4yTgRkmdKQhjhiMyQpJgfN
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1003


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
October 30, 2012, 09:21:36 AM
 #134

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. Smiley

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
October 30, 2012, 10:12:18 AM
 #135

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

Well it's not necessary for normal usage and probably won't be used by 99% Bitcoin users, but it is a very important feature still for the uber-geek/cryptoanarchist/other WKWTAD* people.

--
* WKWTAD people = People Who Know What They Are Doing

CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1003


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
October 30, 2012, 10:53:08 AM
 #136

* WKWTAD people = People Who Know What They Are Doing

And those people can't use the raw tx API (even with the help of brainwallet.org)?

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
October 30, 2012, 11:52:29 AM
 #137

* WKWTAD people = People Who Know What They Are Doing

And those people can't use the raw tx API (even with the help of brainwallet.org)?

Even if that is possible, it will be far more convenient (and less time consuming) if it would be integrated in the mainline client.

CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1003


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
October 30, 2012, 12:24:10 PM
 #138

Even if that is possible, it will be far more convenient (and less time consuming) if it would be integrated in the mainline client.

Well I am pretty sure I will be playing around with the raw tx stuff soon (probably using brainwallet.org to make it easier). So hopefully I'll have something positive to report about using it down the track. Smiley

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
October 30, 2012, 01:21:41 PM
 #139

Even if that is possible, it will be far more convenient (and less time consuming) if it would be integrated in the mainline client.

Well I am pretty sure I will be playing around with the raw tx stuff soon (probably using brainwallet.org to make it easier). So hopefully I'll have something positive to report about using it down the track. Smiley


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.

flatronw
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 50
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 30, 2012, 01:41:14 PM
 #140

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

Ente
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2126
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 30, 2012, 01:52:42 PM
 #141

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 30, 2012, 01:59:04 PM
 #142

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".

17Np17BSrpnHCZ2pgtiMNnhjnsWJ2TMqq8
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1003


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
October 30, 2012, 02:22:39 PM
 #143

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).

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
flatfly
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1006


View Profile
October 30, 2012, 04:48:40 PM
 #144

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.

1111127SpvabYpoeDoiz5L7QPkfiSh2Q. Only donate if you have a reason to.
flatronw
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 50
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 30, 2012, 07:30:37 PM
 #145

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1008


/dev/null


View Profile
October 30, 2012, 08:05:14 PM
 #146

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 Tongue 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?

[GPG Public Key]  [Devcoin Builds]  [BBQCoin Builds]  [Multichain Blockexplorer]  [Multichain Blockexplorer - PoS Coins]  [Ufasoft Miner Linux Builds]
BTC/DVC/TRC/FRC: 1K1773RbXRZVRQSSXe9N6N2MUFERvrdu6y ANC/XPM AK1773RTmRKtvbKBCrUu95UQg5iegrqyeA NMC: NK1773Rzv8b4ugmCgX789PbjewA9fL9Dy1 LTC: LKi773RBuPepQH8E6Zb1ponoCvgbU7hHmd EMC: EK1773RxUes1HX1YAGMZ1xVYBBRUCqfDoF BQC: bK1773R1APJz4yTgRkmdKQhjhiMyQpJgfN
kjj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 30, 2012, 08:05:58 PM
 #147

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?

17Np17BSrpnHCZ2pgtiMNnhjnsWJ2TMqq8
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
flatfly
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1006


View Profile
October 30, 2012, 09:05:13 PM
Last edit: October 30, 2012, 09:50:53 PM by flatfly
 #148

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 Tongue 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.

 

1111127SpvabYpoeDoiz5L7QPkfiSh2Q. Only donate if you have a reason to.
Pieter Wuille
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1036


View Profile WWW
October 30, 2012, 09:45:05 PM
 #149

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.

I do Bitcoin stuff.
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 30, 2012, 09:54:21 PM
 #150

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. Smiley

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.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 430
Merit: 250



View Profile
October 30, 2012, 09:58:57 PM
 #151

Quote
This patch ... provides very little privacy
That`s not even close to truth.
flatfly
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1006


View Profile
October 30, 2012, 10:06:32 PM
 #152

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?

1111127SpvabYpoeDoiz5L7QPkfiSh2Q. Only donate if you have a reason to.
Pieter Wuille
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1036


View Profile WWW
October 30, 2012, 10:10:17 PM
 #153

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.

I do Bitcoin stuff.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1022



View Profile
October 31, 2012, 12:02:51 AM
 #154

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1008


/dev/null


View Profile
October 31, 2012, 12:51:19 AM
 #155

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 Tongue) for it? Altough i have to say i didnt check this function out yet, maybe its really that easy.

[GPG Public Key]  [Devcoin Builds]  [BBQCoin Builds]  [Multichain Blockexplorer]  [Multichain Blockexplorer - PoS Coins]  [Ufasoft Miner Linux Builds]
BTC/DVC/TRC/FRC: 1K1773RbXRZVRQSSXe9N6N2MUFERvrdu6y ANC/XPM AK1773RTmRKtvbKBCrUu95UQg5iegrqyeA NMC: NK1773Rzv8b4ugmCgX789PbjewA9fL9Dy1 LTC: LKi773RBuPepQH8E6Zb1ponoCvgbU7hHmd EMC: EK1773RxUes1HX1YAGMZ1xVYBBRUCqfDoF BQC: bK1773R1APJz4yTgRkmdKQhjhiMyQpJgfN
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1003


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
October 31, 2012, 01:36:20 AM
 #156

@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 Tongue) 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). Sad

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).

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
October 31, 2012, 09:40:45 AM
 #157

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 ?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [All]
  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!