Why?
Whirlpool is intended to be decentralised. If no one single party is "running" all the mixes around the world, that can't possibly be seen as all of those nodes acting with malicious intent. The more Whirlpool coordinators, the better. I have the right to break connections between inputs and outputs for privacy reasons and not exposing my balances to my friends.
There are other coordinators, use them, make more of them, make Sparrow a Whirlpool server instead.
That last thing would be a one way ticket to jail. I'd prefer Craig outside of jail and productive. There's only so much developers can do to protect your human rights, others will have to do the rest (like suing the hell out of the US government).
What's wrong with temporarily creating a multisig transaction with 4 other people, who you have no knowledge of? You're not intentionally assisting anyone with a crime - you don't even know who they are, or even where
You don't have to convince me. You need to convince the US government. They have a habit of arresting people who offer such a service.
Isn't that the right angle @Travis West? If I want to break the link between my balances and recipients, in good faith, I should be able to coordinate with those who want to do the same?
"should be able" leaves out the important question: who makes that possible for you and what risk are they taking. You can do it yourself, compile code yourself, etc.
You can also hope, but not demand, that someone else does that for you. But people offering such services have to make their own risk calculation. And that calculation changed a lot yesterday.
Yes I can compile code myself, run the transactions myself with other people I know, but the best way for Bitcoin to operate is where inputs can't be connected directly to outputs, and that's just how Bitcoin works.
Surely a block could possibly be made one giant transaction with every input and output in one go?
Again, who coordinates this? Or do you have a protocol for decentralized coinjoin coordination for a full block? Not even JoinMarket can do that.
Cross signature input aggregation? https://hrf.org/hrfcisaresearchfellowship/
Hope so, but my impression so far is that it's lots and lots of complexity, plus interactivity (with a coordinator?) for not that much savings.
Savings, shmavings. What about the privacy implications?
Btw, enjoying bitcoin explained pod. Listened to the latest a few weeks ago and since then i've started listening from ep1 aka the NADO episodes
There are no privacy benefits to signature aggregation. The public keys are still visible on the chain.
It allows you to put slightly more transactions in a block, which may or may not actually make a difference for fees.
And thanks for listening!
If this is illegal then Monero is illegal, you're dead wrong, buddy.
You fail to understand the difference between something being and illegal and getting arrested. You are following the news?
If developers are anonymous, there's no one to put in jail.
Anonymity against a dedicated state actor is hard. And getting features built and merged without the benefit of in person meetings and conferences is a huge handicap. It's possible but there's a price.
Bitcoin development is already slow, might slow down 10 - 100x if the current crop of devs is killed (or fakes disappearance somehow) and new nyms have to take over.
Oddbean new post about login | logout