Bitcoin Forum
June 28, 2017, 02:20:35 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: [IDEA] No more merging of outputs for payments = more anonymity?  (Read 1027 times)
Xenland
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


I'm not just any shaman, I'm a Sha256man


View Profile
July 02, 2012, 02:24:08 AM
 #1

What does the community think about Cheaper In Bitcoins to have the option where multiple addresses(as many required) can be generated to one fund one order. The only merge that happens(On the block chain) is the accidental chance that the same merchant "withdraws" the same coins to an address, which sounds unlikely if Cheaper In Bitcoins was getting a lot of traffic.

Half-baked?
Good Idea?
Huh?
Thoughts?
Questions?
Ideas?
Suggestions?
(Hey that last bit rymed!)
There are several different types of Bitcoin clients. Hybrid server-assisted clients like Electrum get a lot of their network information from centralized servers, but they also check the server's results using blockchain header data. This is perhaps somewhat more secure than either server-assisted clients or header-only clients.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Xenland
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


I'm not just any shaman, I'm a Sha256man


View Profile
July 02, 2012, 04:17:28 AM
 #2

Ah, who cares about anonymity anyways....
MaxSan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 369


View Profile
July 02, 2012, 07:16:23 AM
 #3

Correct me if im wrong but im pretty sure you can do this anyway with advanced clients (blockchain.info supports this sort of thing afaik)
Xenland
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


I'm not just any shaman, I'm a Sha256man


View Profile
July 02, 2012, 07:36:49 AM
 #4

I ment as in you use those advanced clients to send to each generated address for the cheaper in bitcoins order.
kangasbros
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 811



View Profile
July 02, 2012, 07:37:11 AM
 #5

Nothing prevents you from implementing this. It will improve anonymity, but is the improvement worth it? And it needs to be implemented on merchant-side, and probably only a very small percentage of your customers are going to use it. Most are just too lazy Smiley

Xenland
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


I'm not just any shaman, I'm a Sha256man


View Profile
July 03, 2012, 04:15:19 AM
 #6

Apparently not too many people are worried about anonminity as a feature. thats a good sign. But darn it I thought a bit-illion dollar idea...
bc
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 72



View Profile
July 05, 2012, 03:55:13 PM
 #7

Apparently not too many people are worried about anonminity as a feature. thats a good sign. But darn it I thought a bit-illion dollar idea...

I think it's a great idea. I hope others follow suit.

"Democracy is the original 51% attack." - Erik Voorhees
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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