📅 Original date posted:2018-10-21
📝 Original message:Your solution in the second part of the email does not solve the problem
you indicated in the first part of your email.
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018, 23:41 Ryan Havar via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Right now it's just *way* too easy to spot the boundaries between
> different wallets. There's a lot of things that contribute to that, but the
> one that concerns me the most is the way wallets sort transaction inputs
> and outputs.
>
> Some wallets and protocols (especially HW wallets) have a strong
> preference for deterministic sorting (i.e. using bip69), while other
> wallets have a lot of objections to this.
>
> I'm not sure I fully understand the objections, but I think they can be
> summarized as "during the transition period there will be a lot of privacy
> loss" and "if in the future someone wants to use bitcoin in a way that's
> not compatible with bip69 their transactions will stick out heavily".
>
> I wonder if this impasse could be solved with deterministic sorting, but
> based on a semi-secret. Like `sortingSecret = hmac(walletSeed,
> "sortingSecret")` and then there's a standardized sort order based on the
> sortingSecret. e.g. sort inputs/output by the `hash(data ||
> sortingSecret)`. Wallets could come up with their own way of computing
> (or storing) the "sortingSecret" but from there it's standardized.
>
> I has the advantages of deterministic sorting (as long as you know the
> sortingSecret) you can verify it's done correctly and externally looks
> totally randomized.
>
> Am I missing something, or could this be the way forward?
>
> -Ryan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20181021/2cf792a9/attachment.html>;
Pavol Rusnak [ARCHIVE] /
npub1wc…3hnuq
2023-06-07 20:15:03
in reply to nevent1q…tcql
Author Public Key
npub1wccnjljxnarlx564vuc37hmuzuffurljevjnmuq4u0vjmh7e933sn3hnuqPublished at
2023-06-07 20:15:03Event JSON
{
"id": "eb2c39cac4c25c275c57081e7052be59cfe5a9a359016d1611943b8ee55b8460",
"pubkey": "7631397e469f47f3535567311f5f7c17129e0ff2cb253df015e3d92ddfd92c63",
"created_at": 1686161703,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"57a6cc7cd9ce0942e49d4f4c77f87a045a5e8b7e96cdb8dea4fa052024d762c9",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"c5892c347f263d2b65c1008daedddf4f1dca1c006cf468f733d2a9e6244fcc68",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"47ed572f0827eaf63c4354055640c8a61ef11a2948d31eec71d2828345386c4a"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-10-21\n📝 Original message:Your solution in the second part of the email does not solve the problem\nyou indicated in the first part of your email.\n\nOn Sun, Oct 21, 2018, 23:41 Ryan Havar via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Right now it's just *way* too easy to spot the boundaries between\n\u003e different wallets. There's a lot of things that contribute to that, but the\n\u003e one that concerns me the most is the way wallets sort transaction inputs\n\u003e and outputs.\n\u003e\n\u003e Some wallets and protocols (especially HW wallets) have a strong\n\u003e preference for deterministic sorting (i.e. using bip69), while other\n\u003e wallets have a lot of objections to this.\n\u003e\n\u003e I'm not sure I fully understand the objections, but I think they can be\n\u003e summarized as \"during the transition period there will be a lot of privacy\n\u003e loss\" and \"if in the future someone wants to use bitcoin in a way that's\n\u003e not compatible with bip69 their transactions will stick out heavily\".\n\u003e\n\u003e I wonder if this impasse could be solved with deterministic sorting, but\n\u003e based on a semi-secret. Like `sortingSecret = hmac(walletSeed,\n\u003e \"sortingSecret\")` and then there's a standardized sort order based on the\n\u003e sortingSecret. e.g. sort inputs/output by the `hash(data ||\n\u003e sortingSecret)`. Wallets could come up with their own way of computing\n\u003e (or storing) the \"sortingSecret\" but from there it's standardized.\n\u003e\n\u003e I has the advantages of deterministic sorting (as long as you know the\n\u003e sortingSecret) you can verify it's done correctly and externally looks\n\u003e totally randomized.\n\u003e\n\u003e Am I missing something, or could this be the way forward?\n\u003e\n\u003e -Ryan\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20181021/2cf792a9/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "d21cb495b9da3e9346c177dcd4114cd2847743787ba50d25ec4526e41f4d53b95e7721d83204f7c952cd09ebdf933d1fd51635e62682fe96565e16cb38e09fa8"
}