wallet2: remove per-subaddress output selection mechanism #117
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
OS: Ubuntu 16.04 Unable to build past 42%; see below. |
|
@420coupe |
|
Merge conflict after merging some earlier PRs |
|
rebased |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The subaddress scheme was introduced to Monero in October 2017 monero-project#2056 where RingCT was already deployed, which means one would typically receive just one rct output per subaddress when receiving money using subaddress as a temporary (e.g. when buying XMR anonymously at ShapeShift). For that scenario, it made sense not to mix outputs received by different subaddresses in order to prevent the slight risk of letting the malicious payer (e.g. ShapeShift) know links between different subaddresses by spending outputs received by different subaddresses together in the same transaction.
This strategy, however, poses a serious problem for Aeon which isn't using RingCT (i.e. each payment is split into multiple denominations), because limiting the source of outputs to be spent to those received by a particular subaddress used as a temporary means all the outputs received by the subaddress have been created in the same transaction; i.e. when spending outputs from a particular subaddress, it becomes absolutely clear which outputs are real spends in the input rings because they all come from the same transaction! This risk far outweighs the slight privacy benefit that the original design intends to bring.