Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 40 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Fix message #1829
Jul 7, 2019
To the 2 coin. But the observer don't know where the 2 coin nor the 80 coin comes from. It doesn't even know if the 2 coin is a 2 coin and the 80 coin is a 80 coin. While for the 1 anonset coin anyone can see that's a 1 anonset (unmixed) coin. As far as the observer is concerned they can come from any source. Of course there are probabilities involved with what the observer can work with, but the point is that, it's not at all obvious that joining mixed coins are a terrible practice. We have a hunch that it is a bad practice, but it's at the very least controversial.
IMO if we decide to clutter the UI, this should be uncontroversial clutter at the very least.
But the observer does know that the coin has 2 anonset - because in one transaction there are exactly two equal value outputs. Now, he might not know the previous history, but he can see that there are two coins.
Agree on the UI clutter, I think we really need to figure out how to have non-abrasive UX guidance for privacy best practices. But I don't think that just a one sentence notification is the right way to go. See #1369.
Not necessarily. If one of the 2 coin comes from a mixed coin, then the anonset is not known, but rather it's a set of possible values. Imagine this:
The observer can see that one of the coin comes from directly to an input, and the other one comes from a mix. It doesn't know which one.
The observer knows that coin3 goes into tx3, and that one of those coins were mixed in tx1. Now, back to the original tx3, let's say coin2 is ours with 2 anonset. But the observer doesn't know. It only knows that it has either 2 anonset, 2*3 anonset or (tx1 anonset)23 anonset, assuming tx1's mix is all coming from unmixed.