Change Contracts using Atomic Transfers

illodin said:
Just make the denoms 500, 100, 10, 5, 1, 0.5, 0.25, 0.1, 0.05, 0.025, 0.01 (and even 0.005, 0.0025, 0.001) and get this over with imo. Deal with bloating later if needed - "summary blocks", mini-blockchain, or some other form of pruning that is yet to be discovered.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, go with 100, 10, 1, 0.10, 0.01, and .001, anything that is change back from a DS process that isn't able to be denominated is sent to the miners/masternode network as a fee. It's dust that quite frankly isn't worth trying to figure out what to do with. Should DRK increase dramatically in value, then there might be discussion about adding another decimal denomination.

I am curious though in terms of bloat going this direction vs the bloat expected from ring sigs and the like.
 
oblox said:
If that's the case, go with 100, 10, 1, 0.10, 0.01, and .001
Click to expand...

The reason I suggested 0.5, 0.25, 0.05 and 0.025 denoms as well is to keep the number of inputs somewhat reasonable. Block size is limited as well. It's a trade-off between bloating and time spent searching for mixing partners. But as the change is getting anonymized as well, we should have a good liquidity in those smaller denoms.
 
We have testnet.

Unless Evan or someone else knows for sure, we can model blockchain size at varying denom resolutions, MN load etc. and extrapolate. Some good old fashioned scientific method...?

Put up a testnet build with on the fly adjustable denoms. Test it down to Duffs. Lets go gather some data. Shouldn't even take that long to do.

My gut feeling is that after the initial spike to denom everything, network load will level off then grow linearly with number of users.
 
This was asked here before "Why can't the sender's wallet just categorize any change as non-anonymized funds?"

That would be the simplest solution! All change could go to "piggy bank" or whatever you want to call it to be re-anon again.

Could someone please explain why we can't implement that?

Thanks!
 
DrkMiner said:
Could someone please explain why we can't implement that?
Click to expand...

Assume you have a 10 DRK anonymous input, and send 7 of that to Bob, and the 3 DRK change goes to non-anonymous funds. Then you decide to send 5 DRK to an exchange that has your name, email, and bank account info, so you see no reason to use anon funds. So you send that 3 DRK you got from the change and another 2 DRK. Now the exchange (and anyone who has authority over the exchange) knows it was you who sent 7 DRK to Bob.
 
illodin said:
Assume you have a 10 DRK anonymous input, and send 7 of that to Bob, and the 3 DRK change goes to non-anonymous funds. Then you decide to send 5 DRK to an exchange that has your name, email, and bank account info, so you see no reason to use anon funds. So you send that 3 DRK you got from the change and another 2 DRK. Now the exchange (and anyone who has authority over the exchange) knows it was you who sent 7 DRK to Bob.
Click to expand...
Actually the 3 drk is still anonymous even though it doesn't show up in the "Create Darksend Transaction" category. I'm doing some testing on Testnet and found that if we keep using the change from the anonymous fund and don't mix it with the non-anonymous, the transactions still stay anonymous.
 
moli said:
Actually the 3 drk is still anonymous even though it doesn't show up in the "Create Darksend Transaction" category. I'm doing some testing on Testnet and found that if we keep using the change from the anonymous fund and don't mix it with the non-anonymous, the transactions still stay anonymous.
Click to expand...

I suppose they still stay anonymous but they are linked together? You know the person that made transaction A is the as the person that made transaction B, even though they are both anonymous?
 
illodin said:
Assume you have a 10 DRK anonymous input, and send 7 of that to Bob, and the 3 DRK change goes to non-anonymous funds. Then you decide to send 5 DRK to an exchange that has your name, email, and bank account info, so you see no reason to use anon funds. So you send that 3 DRK you got from the change and another 2 DRK. Now the exchange (and anyone who has authority over the exchange) knows it was you who sent 7 DRK to Bob.
Click to expand...

Can't we give a new category to the change (3 DRK in the example) have the wallet Lock it and just re-anon it again.
Re-anon level could be set to, lets say 10 DRK. Once we have 10 DRK from change wallet will auto re-anon it.
 
DrkMiner said:
Can't we give a new category to the change (3 DRK in the example) have the wallet Lock it and just re-anon it again.
Re-anon level could be set to, lets say 10 DRK. Once we have 10 DRK from change wallet will auto re-anon it.
Click to expand...

No, because then the changes would get linked together, and hence the transactions where the changes originated from.
 
illodin said:
No, because then the changes would get linked together, and hence the transactions where the changes originated from.
Click to expand...
If Change from transactions A, B and C is placed on a new address and that address is anon. how could that be traced?

Don't forget that change from 3 transactions was already anon before.
What am I missing?
 
DrkMiner said:
If Change from transactions A, B and C is placed on a new address and that address is anon. how could that be traced?

Don't forget that change from 3 transactions was already anon before.
What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Transactions A, B, and C can be linked together. You don't want A to know you sent money to B and C as well.

Does everyone agree, that each change has to be denominated and mixed separately?
 
illodin said:
Transactions A, B, and C can be linked together. You don't want A to know you sent money to B and C as well.

Does everyone agree, that each change has to be denominated and mixed separately?
Click to expand...
I think at this point, it's the only logical way to go... get the change down to dust and send the dust to the network since it can't be used without linking tx's. Then focus on methods of pruning. While it's great to have a written record of transactions (the block chain), what good is it when it's all fog? Do we really need to have documentation all the way back to inception, no.
 
Here's what I meant by "if we keep using the change from the anonymous fund and don't mix it with the non-anonymous".

After I spent some money I have change on this screen, they are next to the check marks and I'm going to spend these change amounts for a total of 9.00000015 DRK. Notice these amounts are not listed as anonymous anymore because they're listed as "change", but they still have the little duffs at the ends:

upload_2014-11-26_17-16-44.png


And here is my transaction. Notice it's not "Darksent" because I could only use "Create Normal Transaction":

upload_2014-11-26_17-19-38.png


My transaction ID is: 671ee71ceed558cdb9a66c10860193bb0f239b64037a436c3b88bdb28118b6fe

Please help me if you can find my origin address from here:
http://test.explorer.darkcoin.fr/tx/671ee71ceed558cdb9a66c10860193bb0f239b64037a436c3b88bdb28118b6fe
 
Last edited by a moderator:
moli said:
Here's what I meant by "if we keep using the change from the anonymous fund and don't mix it with the non-anonymous".

After I spent some money I have change on this screen, they are next to the check marks and I'm going to spend these change amounts for a total of 9.00000015 DRK. Notice these amounts are not listed as anonymous anymore because they're listed as "change", but they still have the little duffs at the ends:

View attachment 647

And here is my transaction. Notice it's not "Darksent" because I could only use "Create Normal Transaction":

View attachment 648

My transaction ID is: 671ee71ceed558cdb9a66c10860193bb0f239b64037a436c3b88bdb28118b6fe

Please help me if you can find my origin address from here:
http://test.explorer.darkcoin.fr/tx/671ee71ceed558cdb9a66c10860193bb0f239b64037a436c3b88bdb28118b6fe
Click to expand...

The "dead change" as I understand it is not about "origin" address but about you previous 4 payments to mmfb6hxTdLT3gQGAEDr2g6Qug8ew2MwKoJ . Actually if you pay to the same merchant as you just did - it's ok but if they where different this would link them all together.
 
moli said:
Here's what I meant by "if we keep using the change from the anonymous fund and don't mix it with the non-anonymous".

After I spent some money I have change on this screen, they are next to the check marks and I'm going to spend these change amounts for a total of 9.00000015 DRK. Notice these amounts are not listed as anonymous anymore because they're listed as "change", but they still have the little duffs at the ends:

View attachment 647

And here is my transaction. Notice it's not "Darksent" because I could only use "Create Normal Transaction":

View attachment 648

My transaction ID is: 671ee71ceed558cdb9a66c10860193bb0f239b64037a436c3b88bdb28118b6fe

Please help me if you can find my origin address from here:
http://test.explorer.darkcoin.fr/tx/671ee71ceed558cdb9a66c10860193bb0f239b64037a436c3b88bdb28118b6fe
Click to expand...

Moli,
Not sure the point you are driving at... but I can see that your 9.0000015 is related to the address: mmfb6hxTdLT3gQGAEDr2g6Qug8ew2MwKoJ
Which has a balance of 907 tDRK. Everything that mmfb6hxTdLT3gQGAEDr2g6Qug8ew2MwKoJ has done, which is a lot of transactions are tied to the 9.000015 you recently spent.

But what were you trying to show here?
 
Well this idea got shot to hell in a heartbeat. But, I'm glad it did because the solution implemented needs to work first and foremost, but secondly, shouldn't hinder the functionality of doing tx's (requiring a daemon running, passphrase security, potentially issues surround instantx implementation, etc).

So with it said, scale the denominations down under 1, understand there will be bloat, but look into a more workable solution to curbing a bloated blockchain. As already stated, keeping a fogged blockchain doesn't serve anything practical or meaningful.
 
UdjinM6 said:
The "dead change" as I understand it is not about "origin" address but about you previous 4 payments to mmfb6hxTdLT3gQGAEDr2g6Qug8ew2MwKoJ . Actually if you pay to the same merchant as you just did - it's ok but if they where different this would link them all together.
Click to expand...
I thought this was about how your transactions can be de-anonymized and traced back to your origin address. No?
 
moli said:
I thought this was about how your transactions can be de-anonymized and traced back to your origin address. No?
Click to expand...
It has more to do with linking future purchases together with finding one's origin address a possible result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top