mimblewimble team mailing list archive

[Andrew Poelstra <apoelstra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Welcome Luna!

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 12:47:50AM -0400, luna-lovegood wrote:
> -Some users may want to do multiple rounds of ValueShuffle over several blocks
> for additional untraceability. I foresee each 'round' costing a dynamic fee to
> defend against DoS attacks, otherwise an attacker will be able to freely DoS
> node tx pools with minimal cost.

Conversely, legitimate users of ValueShuffle will actually save money, because
ValueShuffle can be adapted to merge everyones' kernels into one, saving a ton
of space on the only blockchain-permanent part of the transaction. (And as you
say, regardless of the savings, users should be encouraged to ValueShuffle
purely for privacy reasons.)

So we have to be careful about pricing and incentives. I don't have a solution.
Something to think about.

> I am interested in what this mailing list thinks of integrating ValueShuffle
> into the base layer of Mimblewimble.

I am extremely supportive of this, but I'm not somebody who writes code :). I
think Igno will say "let's get something working, then iterate", but I hope he's
in favor of eventually bringing VS into the protocol layer.


Cheers
Andrew


-- 
Andrew Poelstra
Mathematics Department, Blockstream
Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net
Web:   https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew

"A goose alone, I suppose, can know the loneliness of geese
 who can never find their peace,
 whether north or south or west or east"
       --Joanna Newsom

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature