Private send option for vendors in wallet?

[Icebucket]

Will It be possible in the in the future for people that only want to be payd with private-send to reject normal pay automatically with an message prompting up on the buyers side that it will only be received with private-send ?

So the user can setup his wallet to be only able to get private-send transactions ?

 

[TanteStefana]

Why would this be needed? For KYC?

 

[Icebucket]

Just think its kindow flawed having to rely on people to use privatesend if the recipient only wants to receive payments that way.

Dont know what you mean by KYC :/

 

[Roslyn]

(Know Your Customer)
DASH is KYC compliant, and plans on always being.
Bitcoinist.net: "Dash Partners With Coinfirm for AML/KYC Compliant Adoption"

 

[Solarminer]

Just think its kindow flawed having to rely on people to use privatesend if the recipient only wants to receive payments that way.

Dont know what you mean by KYC :/

KYC is know your customer. It requires that you get name, id info, etc. Applies mainly to large purchases.

Basically, what you are saying is the merchant may want to not link funds coming in to a specific account. One way to address this is to add a tag on the QR code URI like PS=1 to request the mobile wallet to send with a private send. But wait there are no mobile wallets that can do private send. Bummer.

Merchant can mix funds internally before sending to shapeshift/exchange then coinbase/circle to fiat.

Coinfirm will flag all the mixed transactions in the future. So as a merchant you will probably want to reject the mixed transaction because they are not trackable like the government wants. Babyg even made an article with the heading merchants will not accept mixed transactions. Yeah, this is not good for Dash.

The solution. Mix all transactions. Ok, now everyone say, "It is too hard to do on mobile wallets" or "Evolution will fix it."

 

[UdjinM6]

PrivateSend protects sender, not receiver. Receiver have no idea how many rounds mixed funds have - 1 or 8, only sender knows. The only thing visible to receiver is that every input has the same value as one of the predefined denominations. In general, this option makes no sense imo.

...
One way to address this is to add a tag on the QR code URI like PS=1 to request the mobile wallet to send with a private send. But wait there are no mobile wallets that can do private send. Bummer.
...

Desktop wallets work with URI too.

...
The solution. Mix all transactions. Ok, now everyone say, "It is too hard to do on mobile wallets" or "Evolution will fix it."

Inputs are mixed, not transaction. It's not "too hard", it's few net messages + some logic which needs to be reimplemented in obj c or swift, but yes someone has to do code it. The problem is that it just doesn't make sense to mix on mobile with current level of adoption - the process is interactive and there would be too much battery life drained with no or little result achieved. The solution would be to use the same seed on mobile and desktop - this way mixing on desktop you would automagically have mixed funds on your mobile. We are going to use seed eventually, just not in 12.1.

 

[Icebucket]

So nice to have a core developer here to answer questions thanks to take the time @UdjinM6

I guess im asking if there will be someting in the future that protects the reciver, as you said Private send only really protects the sender.

So could there be an option when you create a new wallet if it will only receve private transacctions, promting it on senders site that he needs to check that privatesend box if he wishes this transaction to go through.

Becourse it costs a little bit extra to send by privatesend I think lots of people will opt out even if its just pennies

Dont think people will like relining on the buyer to use that feature if they can just skip it

Thanks for your time UdjinM6

 

[UdjinM6]

So nice to have a core developer here to answer questions thanks to take the time @UdjinM6

I guess im asking if there will be someting in the future that protects the reciver, as you said Private send only really protects the sender.

So could there be an option when you create a new wallet if it will only receve private transacctions, promting it on senders site that he needs to check that privatesend box if he wishes this transaction to go through.

Becourse it costs a little bit extra to send by privatesend I think lots of people will opt out even if its just pennies

Dont think people will like relining on the buyer to use that feature if they can just skip it

Thanks for your time UdjinM6

I still don't understand why would someone require such thing from his customers...
Anyway, once you published your address somewhere, there is no way to reject payments, people can send whatever they want. See address in my signature? You can "spam" it with 0.001 if you wish , I can't censor it ("spam" because if it complies network rules it's not a spam, it's a legit use).

 

[Icebucket]

I still don't understand why would someone require such thing from his customers...
Anyway, once you published your address somewhere, there is no way to reject payments, people can send whatever they want. See address in my signature? You can "spam" it with 0.001 if you wish , I can't censor it ("spam" because if it complies network rules it's not a spam, it's a legit use).

That is what Im suggesting, that people can create wallets that reject all transactions other than Privatesend, since we have lightning fast confirmations it would promt the sender that this is a Private send wallet and he has to use that function in order to finish the transaction.

There are millions of reasons why people would only like to receive private-send transactions.
Why have it in the first place if its a opt in feature totally relying on the other party participating for a fee (if he can skip it and safe penny's),

It is just strange that the vendor has no say in how he is payd, if there is a option available that he prefers but has to trust on his customers to actually use it.

 

[UdjinM6]

That is what Im suggesting, that people can create wallets that reject all transactions other than Privatesend, since we have lightning fast confirmations it would promt the sender that this is a Private send wallet and he has to use that function in order to finish the transaction.

There are millions of reasons why people would only like to receive private-send transactions.
Why have it in the first place if its a opt in feature totally relying on the other party participating for a fee (if he can skip it and safe penny's),

It is just strange that the vendor has no say in how he is payd, if there is a option available that he prefers but has to trust on his customers to actually use it.

What you are effectively proposing is making mixed coins more valuable than non-mixed i.e. making Dash as a whole non-fungible. IMO this can only be implemented as a custom merchant app logic (and then market will tell him if he was right implementing that for his specific case) and not as a protocol level restriction.

 

[Icebucket]

What you are effectively proposing is making mixed coins more valuable than non-mixed i.e. making Dash as a whole non-fungible.

Had not ever thought about it like that, interesting approach.
The way to fix that problem would be to have the fee for privatesend the same as regular transfers, be course by that line of thought you are already discriminating coins and transfers by charging more for Privatesend making them more valuable.

Never really did understand why there is a larger fee for private send or one for mixing, they all go towards the miners, is that some rule that BTC invented and Dash just adopted that idea with out thinking things through or is there some reason for it. ???

 

[UdjinM6]

...
Never really did understand why there is a larger fee for private send or one for mixing, they all go towards the miners, is that some rule that BTC invented and Dash just adopted that idea with out thinking things through or is there some reason for it. ???

Mixing itself is almost free (some regular tiny fees for creating denominations and collaterals + charging collaterals randomly), sending mixed funds has a "fee" up to the smallest denomination because of the "dead change" issue (i.e. there should be no change or your funds are linked again otherwise and therefore all funds for which that you don't specify explicit destination are sent to miners as a fee). Also sending can use lots of small inputs which requires higher fee just like any normal transaction with small inputs would do.

 

[Icebucket]

Mixing itself is almost free (some regular tiny fees for creating denominations and collaterals + charging collaterals randomly), sending mixed funds has a "fee" up to the smallest denomination because of the "dead change" issue (i.e. there should be no change or your funds are linked again otherwise and therefore all funds for which that you don't specify explicit destination are sent to miners as a fee). Also sending can use lots of small inputs which requires higher fee just like any normal transaction with small inputs would do.

Ah that is why, thanks for clarifying that for me.

I was checking out the Preview video of Evolution

There Amanda talks about different types of accounts that can be created, one of them was a Private funds account with a send and receive options, Is that what I think it is ?
The same thing I was asking for in the beginning of this thread.