Bitcoin Forum
March 28, 2024, 06:59:49 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Sentiments?
You're an idiot, don't do this! - 154 (47.2%)
I don't like this, but I agree we need to move forward with it. - 27 (8.3%)
We should have waited longer, but I guess it needs to move forward now. - 26 (8%)
Great, it's about time! - 44 (13.5%)
You're a hero, let's get this deployed everywhere ASAP! - 49 (15%)
If it's from Luke, it can't be any good. - 26 (8%)
Total Voters: 326

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Miners: Time to deprioritise/filter address reuse!  (Read 51764 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3430
Merit: 3068



View Profile
November 17, 2013, 02:47:05 AM
 #161

I have no flipping idea what anyone is talking about. Am I going to need to create new address everytime I get paid from my pool? Because that would be plain stupid. Please correct me in simple English because this is how I'm seeing it.

Not yet, relax for the moment. None of this will matter for a while yet, till then, get clued up. I've explained it all below.

I recently lost all my coins because I created a new receiving address and didn't back it up. Wouldn't this create more similar problems?

Nope, instead it solves them.

There's a new wallet feature, Armory has used this idea since very early on. The idea is to have the addresses worked out in advance, but not just in a list. Instead, and you should be able to guess this, you use cryptography to define the list. You get the ability to create Master Addresses, and each Master Address basically gives you an infinite list of addresses for receiving funds at your wallet. You create yourself a Master Address for mining with, and give that to the pool. Then you only have to BACK UP ONCE. It's pretty neat, I've used Armory's version of this already. Create as many Master Keys as you like, just like normal addresses. So that whoever you give a Master Address can't see your whole wallet and every address in it, they can only see the ones you gave it to them for in the first place.

I may be barking up the wrong tree here... but what gives? Bitcoin is fine the way it is.

Problem is the idea for colour lists that track our coins. It comes down to the old theory of money stuff. Someone can look at one of these tracking lists, look at my BTC address, then look at your BTC address, and decide they'd prefer your coins to mine. Because mine are on a list that says they were ransomed from a grandma. This makes Bitcoin less money-like, and if yours or my government want to kill Bitcoin, they can start by creating laws that say "everyone must use addresses that are on the list, otherwise they can't pay". It doesn't have to be in the BItcoin software, it can just be a list you can search on some website. If you get given listed coins, you say to the person paying you "Sorry, can't give you what you paid for, because you paid with dirty money. I can't spend this, because it's on the list. If you still want [whatever it is], you can pay with clean, listed BTC. I'm sending the dirty money to the dirty money collection & cleaning guys". Big problem. People don't want to use a system like that, BTC price goes down. People stop using it. Bye bye Bitcoin.

The lists are no good if we take steps. This is one out of many steps. If we concentrate on getting these things in place, and make them understood by everyone, the lists won't work. Hello Bitcoin.

Vires in numeris
1711652389
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711652389

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711652389
Reply with quote  #2

1711652389
Report to moderator
1711652389
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711652389

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711652389
Reply with quote  #2

1711652389
Report to moderator
TalkImg was created especially for hosting images on bitcointalk.org: try it next time you want to post an image
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711652389
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711652389

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711652389
Reply with quote  #2

1711652389
Report to moderator
ArticMine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282
Merit: 1050


Monero Core Team


View Profile
November 17, 2013, 02:54:27 AM
 #162


You're an idiot, don't do this!   - 59 (36.6%)
I don't like this, but I agree we need to move forward with it.   - 14 (8.7%)
We should have waited longer, but I guess it needs to move forward now.   - 19 (11.8%)
Great, it's about time!   - 23 (14.3%)
You're a hero, let's get this deployed everywhere ASAP!   - 35 (21.7%)
If it's from Luke, it can't be any good.   - 11 (6.8%)

I read the poll more along these lines. Opposed: 43.2% In favour with varying degrees of support: 56.5% Rounding 0.3%. There is a fair degree of support for this. We must also keep in mind the following


i coloured it because for instance
saying "i dont like this" 14 (8.7%) means literally i dont like this.. in other words NO
saying "we should have waited longer" 19 (11.8%) means literally i dont want this to be done yet.. in other words NOT YET

but both questions are worded to then subtly suggest they agree to implement it. these type of questions are called trick questions.

EG if i said "do you hate termites" and you chose
1) i dont like them, but i agree we to live along side them as they are living creatures

great using that answer, you have agreed to allow me to deliver 500,000 termite larvae to your house as you seem to be ok with it.


To quote the termite example. It is more like I am not ok with allowing you to deliver 500,000 termite larvae to my house; however if you do I will not call the exterminator even though the termites will demolish the house. The trouble with saying "no but" is that more often than not it means "yes".

Concerned that blockchain bloat will lead to centralization? Storing less than 4 GB of data once required the budget of a superpower and a warehouse full of punched cards. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card
BitThink
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 17, 2013, 02:57:54 AM
 #163

Apparently no restriction should be done before the clients supporting convenient solutions to avoid address reusing. Otherwise you are trying to kill BTC rather than helping. Please spend more efforts on clients instead of mining softwares. No project will succeed in going to mainstream try to piss off users just for pleasing some genious developers who think they have better vision of the future. BTC now is no longer the toy of developers as the early days. You are dealing with billions of people's money now.

This patch isn't designed to restrict, it is designed to discourage.
It's not just discourage as you think, it's forbidding in some scenario. If a merchant use a fix address to receive payment , it can only receive 6 payments per hour. Basically makes the service useless. It's customers have to wait forever if there're more than 6 payments per hour.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3430
Merit: 3068



View Profile
November 17, 2013, 03:14:11 AM
 #164

Apparently no restriction should be done before the clients supporting convenient solutions to avoid address reusing. Otherwise you are trying to kill BTC rather than helping. Please spend more efforts on clients instead of mining softwares. No project will succeed in going to mainstream try to piss off users just for pleasing some genious developers who think they have better vision of the future. BTC now is no longer the toy of developers as the early days. You are dealing with billions of people's money now.

This patch isn't designed to restrict, it is designed to discourage.
It's not just discourage as you think, it's forbidding in some scenario. If a merchant use a fix address to receive payment , it can only receive 6 payments per hour. Basically makes the service useless. It's customers have to wait forever if there're more than 6 payments per hour.

Eligius are only testing this out. It's only one pool. It's not absolute, just preferential. Mining Dynamics 101. Find. Read. Learn. Understand. Shush.

Vires in numeris
Luke-Jr (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186



View Profile
November 17, 2013, 03:15:28 AM
 #165


You're an idiot, don't do this!   - 59 (36.6%)
I don't like this, but I agree we need to move forward with it.   - 14 (8.7%)
We should have waited longer, but I guess it needs to move forward now.   - 19 (11.8%)
Great, it's about time!   - 23 (14.3%)
You're a hero, let's get this deployed everywhere ASAP!   - 35 (21.7%)
If it's from Luke, it can't be any good.   - 11 (6.8%)

I read the poll more along these lines. Opposed: 43.2% In favour with varying degrees of support: 56.5% Rounding 0.3%. There is a fair degree of support for this. We must also keep in mind the following


i coloured it because for instance
saying "i dont like this" 14 (8.7%) means literally i dont like this.. in other words NO
saying "we should have waited longer" 19 (11.8%) means literally i dont want this to be done yet.. in other words NOT YET

but both questions are worded to then subtly suggest they agree to implement it. these type of questions are called trick questions.

EG if i said "do you hate termites" and you chose
1) i dont like them, but i agree we to live along side them as they are living creatures

great using that answer, you have agreed to allow me to deliver 500,000 termite larvae to your house as you seem to be ok with it.


To quote the termite example. It is more like I am not ok with allowing you to deliver 500,000 termite larvae to my house; however if you do I will not call the exterminator even though the termites will demolish the house. The trouble with saying "no but" is that more often than not it means "yes".
No...

Options 2 and 3 are more like "I don't really want to pay for a security system, but if people are going to start burgling my house, I want one."

FWIW, I personally am in the "We should have waited longer, but I guess it needs to move forward now." boat.

ArticMine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282
Merit: 1050


Monero Core Team


View Profile
November 17, 2013, 03:30:13 AM
 #166

No...

Options 2 and 3 are more like "I don't really want to pay for a security system, but if people are going to start burgling my house, I want one."

FWIW, I personally am in the "We should have waited longer, but I guess it needs to move forward now." boat.

Which is why I do not like options 2 and 3. Why? Because there may not be enough time to install the security system before the house is burgled. Option 4 is more to my liking by the way. One thing to note is that the proposed payment protocol will address the many of arguments against what is being proposed here.

Concerned that blockchain bloat will lead to centralization? Storing less than 4 GB of data once required the budget of a superpower and a warehouse full of punched cards. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card
BigJohn
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 116
Merit: 10


View Profile
November 17, 2013, 03:38:05 AM
 #167

Apparently no restriction should be done before the clients supporting convenient solutions to avoid address reusing. Otherwise you are trying to kill BTC rather than helping. Please spend more efforts on clients instead of mining softwares. No project will succeed in going to mainstream try to piss off users just for pleasing some genious developers who think they have better vision of the future. BTC now is no longer the toy of developers as the early days. You are dealing with billions of people's money now.

This patch isn't designed to restrict, it is designed to discourage.
It's not just discourage as you think, it's forbidding in some scenario. If a merchant use a fix address to receive payment , it can only receive 6 payments per hour. Basically makes the service useless. It's customers have to wait forever if there're more than 6 payments per hour.

But isn't that the exact point? That it would start to be a hindrance to merchants so they'd stop reusing addresses?
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1063


Gerald Davis


View Profile
November 17, 2013, 03:40:25 AM
 #168

It's not just discourage as you think, it's forbidding in some scenario. If a merchant use a fix address to receive payment , it can only receive 6 payments per hour. Basically makes the service useless. It's customers have to wait forever if there're more than 6 payments per hour.

What merchant uses a static address for all customers?   Horribly insecure and prone to problems.  Anyone that foolish should just use a service like bitpay and have it done right by someone competent.

samurai1200
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 303
Merit: 250


View Profile
November 17, 2013, 03:43:39 AM
 #169

But isn't that the exact point? That it would start to be a hindrance to merchants so they'd stop reusing addresses?

Yup.

Just thought of something... how does the BIP32 protocol addendum limit the usable address space based on whatever seed is generating the string of future keys? Reading the wiki pages now, will edit this post if i find an answer. I understand this might be nonsensical.

Hodl for the longest tiem.

Use it or lose it: http://coinmap.org/
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1063


Gerald Davis


View Profile
November 17, 2013, 03:45:28 AM
 #170

But isn't that the exact point? That it would start to be a hindrance to merchants so they'd stop reusing addresses?
Just thought of something... how does the BIP32 protocol addendum limit the usable address space based on whatever seed is generating the string of future keys? Reading the wiki pages now, will edit this post if i find an answer.

What do you mean limit the usable address space?  There is no change in the number of possible addresses.
mikegogulski
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 360
Merit: 250



View Profile WWW
November 17, 2013, 04:07:38 AM
 #171

It's not just discourage as you think, it's forbidding in some scenario. If a merchant use a fix address to receive payment , it can only receive 6 payments per hour. Basically makes the service useless. It's customers have to wait forever if there're more than 6 payments per hour.

What merchant uses a static address for all customers?   Horribly insecure and prone to problems.  Anyone that foolish should just use a service like bitpay and have it done right by someone competent.


See, e.g., the Subway shop in Bratislava, Slovakia mentioned above, and at http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qrp1h/subway_accepting_bitcoins_in_slovakia_bratislava/ and also the discussion above around non-profits and other entities wishing to conduct transparent finance on the blockchain.


FREE ROSS ULBRICHT, allegedly one of the Dread Pirates Roberts of the Silk Road
samurai1200
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 303
Merit: 250


View Profile
November 17, 2013, 04:11:09 AM
 #172

But isn't that the exact point? That it would start to be a hindrance to merchants so they'd stop reusing addresses?
Just thought of something... how does the BIP32 protocol addendum limit the usable address space based on whatever seed is generating the string of future keys? Reading the wiki pages now, will edit this post if i find an answer.

What do you mean limit the usable address space?  There is no change in the number of possible addresses.

For some reason I was thinking that using a seed->prng, and sequential nonce would end up with a subset of the 2^160 (#?) key pairs.

If the entire world economy used a new key pair for every digital transaction (the rate of which is increasing exponentially) for the next 50 years... where would we end up in terms of collision probability? I dunno, i think i'm way off topic here. We can let this sidebar fall away now...

Hodl for the longest tiem.

Use it or lose it: http://coinmap.org/
AtlasONo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 551
Merit: 500



View Profile
November 17, 2013, 04:23:00 AM
 #173


What merchant uses a static address for all customers?  Horribly insecure and prone to problems.  Anyone that foolish should just use a service like bitpay and have it done right by someone competent.


Just about every in person retail merchant I've ever seen.

Quote from such a merchant "I like taking payments directly versus using a third-party processor like BitPay or Coinbase because it is more in the spirit of bitcoin. Why fill out an application and give up all your personal info when you don't have to? Bitcoin is your money." Is bitcoin our money or is it the miners money?

What makes it "horribly insecure" other than having the transactions visible?
mrefish
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 27
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 17, 2013, 04:58:02 AM
 #174

Quote from: AtlasONo

: What makes it "horribly insecure" ?

A permanent  list of addresses and times is created for that physical location.

Imagine a customer is careless and visits daily , using a address with other large transactions. That high value wallet can be ambushed.
DoomDumas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1002
Merit: 1000


Bitcoin


View Profile
November 17, 2013, 05:13:35 AM
 #175

For those who wants complete anonymity, they can go for some altcoins supporting it. In my opinion, BTC is supposed to be used by everyone and everywhere as mainstream currency. So please stop doing things like this to push the majority away just for the sake of niche market.
I can't seem to find the link to your bank account records, mind posting them for us?

Luke is pretty much the last person you'd expect to give a crap about underground uses. But privacy is _not_ only a consideration for them, or even primarily for them: dope dealers—or whatever you want your bogeyman to be—can buy their way to privacy even in a system which is very non-private.

Financial privacy is an essential element to fungibility in Bitcoin: if you can meaningfully distinguish one coin from another, then their fungibility is weak. If our fungibility is too weak in practice, then we cannot be decentralized: if someone important announces a list of stolen coins they won't accept coins derived from, you must carefully check coins you accept against that list and return the ones that fail.  Everyone gets stuck checking blacklists issued by various authorities because in that world we'd all not like to get stuck with bad coins. This adds friction and transactional costs and makes Bitcoin less valuable as a money.

Financial privacy is an essential criteria for the efficient operation of a free market: if you run a business, you cannot effectively set prices if your suppliers and customers can see all your transactions against your will. You cannot compete effectively if your competition is tracking your sales.  Individually your informational leverage is lost in your private dealings if you don't have privacy over your accounts: if you pay your landlord in Bitcoin without enough privacy in place, your landlord will see when you've received a pay raise and can hit you up for more rent.

Financial privacy is essential for personal safety: if thieves can see your spending, income, and holdings, they can use that information to target and exploit you. Without privacy malicious parties have more ability to steal your identity, snatch your large purchases off your doorstep, or impersonate businesses you transact with towards you... they can tell exactly how much to try to scam you for.

Financial privacy is essential for human dignity: no one wants the snotty barista at the coffee shop or their nosy neighbors commenting on their income or spending habits. No one wants their baby-crazy in-laws asking why they're buying contraception (or sex toys). Your employer has no business knowing what church you donate to. Only in a perfectly enlightened discrimination free world where no one has undue authority over anyone else could we retain our dignity and make our lawful transactions freely without self-censorship if we don't have privacy.

Most importantly, financial privacy isn't incompatible with things like law enforcement or transparency. You can always keep records, be ordered (or volunteer) to provide them to whomever, have judges hold against your interest when you can't produce records (as is the case today).  None of this requires _globally_ visible public records.

Globally visible public records in finance are completely unheard-of. They are undesirable and arguably intolerable. The Bitcoin whitepaper made a promise of how we could get around the visibility of the ledger with pseudonymous addresses, but the ecosystem has broken that promise in a bunch of places and we ought to fix it. Bitcoin could have coded your name or IP address into every transaction. It didn't. The whitepaper even has a section on privacy. It's incorrect to say that Bitcoin isn't focused on privacy. Sufficient privacy is an essential prerequisite for a viable digital currency.

So, again, I ask—let's see your bank records; I'm sure there is an export to CSV.  Mtgox transaction dumps? Stock trading accounts. Let's see you—even just you—post all this before you presume to say that you think that's what the public wants forced on everyone.


This is a very good explaination, I understand much more about the issue now.  Everyone that wants to express their opinion about this debate should read this kind of writing before writing about the subject.

Thanks gmaxwell !
BitThink
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 17, 2013, 07:46:30 AM
 #176

As I said, you cannot do some changes to a billion dollar related project just because you think it's correct. The side effect may kill a project before you see any positive effect. That's why backward compatibility is so important in software industry.
btcdrak
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1000


View Profile
November 17, 2013, 08:23:03 AM
 #177

I.  Auction bidding.

This can be accomplished with a BIP32 address chain


Is this supported with blockchain.info or bitcoin-qt at this time?


No, and that's the point. Unless some pressure is exerted, adoption of BIP0032 will always be on the back burner. This is an example of how miners can exert pressure on the entire ecosystem.
btcdrak
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1000


View Profile
November 17, 2013, 08:27:10 AM
 #178

So let me get this right: A mining pool operator implemented a change that, with (wider) acceptance, would delay payments to his own miners? Should his miners change their payout addresses every single mined block?

BIP_32 is not in effect, so that argument is currently moot.

And thus create incentive for wallet operators to implement BIP32 now. In doing so they will also attract more users to their brand of wallet since they will be the frist to adopt. This doesnt harm bitcoin in the slightest.
BitThink
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 17, 2013, 08:31:42 AM
 #179

I.  Auction bidding.

This can be accomplished with a BIP32 address chain


Is this supported with blockchain.info or bitcoin-qt at this time?


No, and that's the point. Unless some pressure is exerted, adoption of BIP0032 will always be on the back burner. This is an example of how miners can exert pressure on the entire ecosystem.
On the contrary, now I think the over centralized miners become the biggest danger of BTC. Just two or three big pools can ruin the who ecosystem with just one bold action.

With current difficulty, there's almost no chance for a new pool to survive and hence no democracy at all in BTC now. We are now all controlled by the operators of BTCGuild and other couple of pools.
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1063


Gerald Davis


View Profile
November 17, 2013, 08:34:03 AM
 #180

As I said, you cannot do some changes to a billion dollar related project just because you think it's correct. The side effect may kill a project before you see any positive effect. That's why backward compatibility is so important in software industry.

Utter nonsense.   This isn't a change to the core protocol.  All miners have ALWAYS had the ability to prioritize tx as they see fit.  Currently ~15% on the network is implementing this so the effect on multi-use addresses is minimal at best.

Bitcoin was DESIGNED for this type of decentralized tx processing.   There is a reason tx selection is loosely coupled.  There is a reason that miners are free to include any valid tx in a block.  There is a reason that other miners can't override or veto that decision.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!