Oleg Andreev submitted by
on Apr 13 2017:
(This is a sketch, not a fully-formed proposal, just to kick off the discussion.)
Confidential Transactions (by GMaxwell & Poelstra) require a new accounting model,
new representation of numbers (EC points as Pedersen commitments) and range proofs
per number. Setting aside performance and bandwidth concerns (3-4Kb per output,
50x more signature checks), how would we deploy that feature on Bitcoin network
in the most compatible manner?
I'll try to present a sketch of the proposal. I apologize if this discussion already
happened somewhere, although I couldn't find anything on this subject, apart from Elements
sidechain proposal, of course.
At first glance we could create a new extblock and transaction format, add a protocol to
"convert" money into and from such extblock, and commit to that extblock from the
outer block's coinbase transaction. Unfortunately, this opens gates to a flood of
debates such as what should be the block size limit in such block, should we
take opportunity to fix over 9000 of pet-peeve issues with existing transactions
and blocks, should we adjust inflation schedule, insert additional PoW, what would
Satoshi say etc. Federated sidechain suffers from the same issues, plus adds
concerns regarding governance, although it would be more decoupled, which is useful.
I tried to look at a possibility to make the change as compatible as possible,
sticking confidential values right into the existing transaction structure and
see how that would look like. As a nice bonus, confidential transactions would have
to fit into the hard-coded 1 Mb limit, preserving the drama around it :-P
We start with a segwit-enabled script versioning and introduce 2 new script versions:
version A has an actual program concatenated with the commitment, while version B
has only the commitment and allows mimblewimble usage (no signatures, non-interactive
cut-through etc). Legacy cleartext amount can nicely act as "min value" to minimize
the range proof size, and range proofs themselves are provided separately in the
segregated witness payload.
Then, we soft fork additional rules:
- In non-coinbase tx, sum of commitments on inputs must balance with sum of commitments
on the outputs plus the cleartext mining fee in the witness.
- Range proof can be confidential, based on borromean ring signature.
- Range proof can be non-confidential, consisting of an amount and raw blinding factor.
- Tx witness can have an excess value (cf. MW) and cleartext amount for a miner's fee.
- In coinbase tx, total plaintext reward + commitments must balance with subsidy,
legacy fees and new fees in the witness.
- Extra fees in the witness must be signed with the excess value's key.
The confidential transactions use the same UTXO set, can be co-authored with plaintext inputs/outputs
using legacy software and maybe even improve scalability by compressing on-chain transactions
using mimblewimble cut-through.
The rules above could have been made more complicated with export/import logic to allow users
converting their coins to and from confidential ones, but that would require
more complex support from miners to respect and merge outputs representing "plaintext value bank",
mutate export transactions, which in turn requires introduction of a non-malleable TxID
that excludes miner-adjustable export/import outputs.
The rules above have a nice side effect that miners, being the minters of confidential coins,
can sell them at a premium, which creates an incentive for them to actually support
that feature and work on improving performance of rangeproof validation (e.g. in GPUs).
Would love to hear comments and criticism of that approach.
Oleg. original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/014144.html
This post is old – I wrote it for Wired, which just published an excerpt in “The Wired World in 2014” issue, but the article was written in July. Apologies for the obsolescence. Bitcoin will eventually be recognized as a platform for building new financial services. Most people are only familiar with (b)itcoin the electronic currency, but more important is (B)itcoin, with a capital B Bitcoin is not a protocol of transfer, but a protocol of ownership. Coins never travel, but simply switch owners. — Oleg Andreev (@oleganza) March 20, 2014 Chain product architect Oleg Andreev pointed to a comment from Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell suggesting that mining pools that say they are running Bitcoin Unlimited might not be. Greg Maxwell points out that killing 50% of BU nodes did not lead to the same drop in BU-signalling hashrate. Bitcoin is the currency of the Internet: a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Unlike traditional currencies such as dollars, bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. As such, it is more resistant to wild inflation and corrupt banks. That means, that unlike any other bitcoin holder that can put bitcoins to a better use any time they want, miners cannot use coins for over 100 blocks. Miner could use these coins to open many payment channels with interested users (they will pay their deposit using a separate transaction, for free).
Sign in to like videos, comment, and subscribe. Sign in. Watch Queue Queue If you have anti-virus software running, and/or Windows Defender turned-on, whitelist or add exceptions to the folder containing your Bitcoin mining files, then edit the Pool Mining and/or Solo ... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue Oleg Andreev's article "Proof that Proof-of-Work is the only solution to Byzantine Generals' problem" https://gist.github.com/oleganza/8cc921e48f396515c6d6 This video is about HOW TO SETUP BITCOIN MINING AT HOME 2018. This is episode #2. Software. In this video I am explaining in details how is my home mining setup and configured on CGMINER for ...