975600+ entries in 0.62s
midnightmagic: mircea_popescu: Hey man
that's a false analogy. But if you want
to rhetorically accept
the "identity collapse"
thing, fine. Go on
then and make your point, I'll listen.
midnightmagic: smickles: I'm not really sure how it could except by
tipping someone over 50%. pirate claimed on many occasions
that gpumax often had > 50% of
the hashrate but he was being responsible wiht it.
mircea_popescu: dude, if i say "a car will move items around
the surface of
the earth" a discussion of combustion engines is out of place
dub: anyway, my confusion was
teh apparent about face
dub: smickles: idk, I
thought it was
the laundry aspect
approxprime: dub: i
thought gmax didn't like gpumax b/c it gave financial incentive
to undermine
the mineing network
midnightmagic: because you are formalizing something based on hand-wavey identity collapse methods which
transactions like gmaxwell's proposed
txn are being designed specifically
to foil.
dub: which is
the aim of money laundering
dub: its all about fungibility
thought right?
mircea_popescu: makes no difference. for all we care it can be
throwing darts.
midnightmagic: dub: What he's doing involves
two or
three (or more) parties who are
taking an enormous risk
that
the outputs won't be used for nefarious purposes.
midnightmagic: lol but we can't move on without detailing
the method of identity collapse.
mircea_popescu: im
trying
to construct
the logic of
this here, stay with
the step we're on
midnightmagic: mircea_popescu: It means
that gmaxwell can't prove
to buffett
that he owns
those coins; and
that his purpose isn't
to put on a
tweed coat and a bowler's hat and smoke a pipe and say he's rich.
midnightmagic: dub: Actually, he railed against gpumax because gpumax appeared
to be a coin laundry
that
the participants were unaware of. (exchanging dirty for pristine at a premium.)
mircea_popescu: midnightmagic what difference does all
that make
tho ?
dub: midnightmagic: I
thought gmaxwell was generally against coin mixing, he railled aganst gpumax for
that reason unless I am forgetful
midnightmagic: I interpret
the ~=
to mean
that some addresses overlap or can be related
to
the addresses prior, but
that's what I say can't be related unless
the owner of
the outputs of
the
transactions signs a non-multisig
transaction
that requires A' *and* A addresses
together in a single-output
txn, *and* we assume
that people would automatically steal from one another if
they could.
gribble: There are currently 14208.378 bitcoins offered at or under 20.0 USD, worth 283035.775173 USD in
total.
mircea_popescu: in
the sense
that [1, 9, b] approximately equals
the set of prime numbers.
midnightmagic: hrm. i'd have
to
think about it some more
to agree with your statement.
there's a large hand-wavey part wrapped up in
the identity collapse.
midnightmagic: the spends go
to completely unrelated addresses, which
the end-user should be careful not
to mix in
terms of spending, with
the input addresses.
midnightmagic: At any rate,
there's no way
to prove
to buffett
that he specifically had *control* of
the coins.
mircea_popescu: There's addresses a1-an, b1-bn, ... x1-xn belonging
to wallets A, B, ... X.
Through
tx collapse one can extract out of
the blockchain what appear like wallets A', B', ... X'.
These wallets will contain a number of addresses, which may or may not coincide with
the proper a1-an set for A. In general it's safe
to asume
that A != A', but it may also be
the case
that A ~= A'.
midnightmagic: but
this is
the naive viewpoint, because identity collapsing could just be limited
to
txn which involve limited outputs.
midnightmagic: What would need
to happen would be
that someone would have
to
take
the word of a
totally untrusted
third-party who says, "well look here,
this is all from
the same person"
mircea_popescu: but it may well be
to show someone who doesn't read
the forum
that he has a huge wallet.
mircea_popescu: gmaxwell is
trying
to collect a number of addies in varying wallets into single such collapsed presumed wallets
mircea_popescu: dude, it's simple. currently people
think
they can group addies into wallets
midnightmagic: because I've already done it with him a bunch of
times, so lemme go check and see whether it's
the same
thing.
midnightmagic: so he couldn't go
to buffett and prove he owns
the coins without lying
to him and claiming
that "that one
txn right
there proves i could have controlled x money" because he can't forge
the signature of
the address from
the bigspender.
midnightmagic: there's no way of "proving"
that
the money is in an address
that gmaxwell can use
to spend.
midnightmagic: and *actual coinage* never actually goes
through gmaxwell's hands.
midnightmagic: Now,
the old methjod of collapsing identity fails. *but* individual addresses still remain
the property of
the original people.
midnightmagic: They're different addresses
though. So gmaxwell comes along and offers
to join his own money into a multisig *transaction* which has an output of some other, new addresses.
midnightmagic: This method can be used
to collect a pile of individual
txn and "collapse" all
the addresses into one entity.
midnightmagic: Okay, from
the
top. When someone
tries
to figure out a particular identity,
they use
the method as described in
the identifying mechanisms presented at 28c3 in germany:
transactions "prove"
that
the person who "owns"
the inputs is
the same person.
midnightmagic: how does he prove
to buffett
that he "owns"
the address from which
the money came from? he can't.
mircea_popescu: thus believes
this guy actually has a billionty bitcoinz
mircea_popescu: buffett has a dim understanding of
taint and blockchain and doesn't read
the forum
mircea_popescu: he just goes
to buffett and proves
to him
that he owns address X
midnightmagic: mircea_popescu:
The mathematics of it makes it impossible.
mircea_popescu: not meaning by
this he is a scammer, i still
think he's an idiot
mircea_popescu: midnightmagic im just saying, if i were a scammer
trying
to part some fiat ivnestors from
their money, i'd do
the exact
thing he's doing.
midnightmagic: mircea_popescu: But it would be an advantage
to join with all
those people and withdraw, you are correct.
mircea_popescu: midnightmagic you don't send
the 5th 1k block
till you got
the 4th
to your addy
smickles: mircea_popescu: I believe it's more accurate
to say
that control of coins goes from one
txid
to another, rather
than one address
to another.
the fact
that it's known which address is associated with wich
txid at
this
time is incidental
midnightmagic: mircea_popescu: Presumably you could, if you wanted, just decide
to keep it.
mircea_popescu: midnightmagic deposit it over 500
transactions, what diff does it make
to you ?
midnightmagic: if I deposit 500,000 bitcoin
to you, what happens if you decide
to keep it?
mircea_popescu: sending
to 1Fx3N5iFPDQxUKhhmDJqCMmi3U8Y7gSncx and
then withdrawing has
the certain advantage
that you're actually in a pool of 10's of k's of btc,
midnightmagic: well, in
that case, at
the very least,
there's a
trust
thing which can't be cryptographically avoided, unless you are doing multisig similar
to what gmaxwell is.
mircea_popescu: what do i know ?
that it's really 34jk5hty895ytg9g4t's btc ?
smickles: mircea_popescu:
the
trail is by
txid, addresses are just incidental
midnightmagic: Figuratively of course; or apply legal pressure so it's not worth it
to keep it secret.
midnightmagic: We go
to your house with a large lead pipe and start hitting you with it until you
tell us.
mircea_popescu: how are you going
to disentangle btc
that went
through
the same address ?
mircea_popescu: send your btc
to mpex, withdraw it, end of story. it's as anon as it will ever get.
midnightmagic: no, it's mocking
two
things: 1) rich-lists, 2)
taint analyses.
midnightmagic: mircea_popescu: It is cryptographically secure; and, actually, gmaxwell is
taking a bit of a risk doing it.
mircea_popescu: yeah. like, for instance, privately convincing some naive people with a lot of money
that you matter.
midnightmagic: mircea_popescu: right. but it has other uses,
too.
mircea_popescu: o,
that
thing where he's
trying
to create a
trail showing himself
to be rich ?
midnightmagic: mircea_popescu: A little while ago, dub was saying he doesn't understand gmaxwell's mixer
thing. It's not really a mixer, it's guaranteed
to be essentially impossible
to disentangle
those sorts of
transactions due
to
the fungibility of bitcoin.
mircea_popescu: smickles sounds like a plan. now we know what's with all
the cctv
smickles: mircea_popescu:
then we could structure it in a way
that we have people in situations where
the might likely have sex without being prompted, it would make it larger,
take longer and be more expensive
mircea_popescu: Zimbabwe,
the country
that's home
to some of
the world's largest platinum and diamond reserves, literally has
the same financial standing as a 14-year-old girl after a really good birthday party.
mircea_popescu: smickles
then
they're only representing
that subsection of
the population who'll generally do
that.
smickles: but neither
the observers or
the subjects know what we're
trying
to
test
midnightmagic: IMO, it is ethical
to point out, publically, serious flaws in
the way information is presented
to
the public.
midnightmagic: dub: What's confusing about combining monies
to obscure
their sources and screw up crappy "taint" analyses?
smickles: naw,
they know generally what
they are going
to do
mircea_popescu: smickles you're gonna hire people
to fuck without
telling
them ?
smickles: and make sure
they don't know whats being
tested
mircea_popescu: smickles i doubt statistics can help, because
the sample is selected
smickles: you'd have
to have a large enough set of subjects
mircea_popescu: im saying
that whoever will apply fails
to represent
the entire set adequately
kakobrekla: seems
to me usagi has an answer
to everything always just before he quits.
mircea_popescu: ya but drug stuff objectively interacts with
the subjects
smickles: or, you're saying
that only sexworkers would apply?