BIP Draft for Octojoin #1669
Draft
BIP Draft for Octojoin #1669
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
1440000bytes
force-pushed
the
octojoinv1
branch
2 times, most recently
from
b03f800
to
a0dc7f5
Compare
1440000bytes
force-pushed
the
octojoinv1
branch
from
a0dc7f5
to
c52c746
Compare
jonatack
reviewed
Oct 8, 2024
| bar [125, 143, 157, 130, 117, 106, 121, 123, 127] | ||
| </source> | ||
|
|
||
| Transactions that already use 3 inputs and 2 outputs will serve as the anonymity set for octojoin transactions with default values. It is possible to change defaults and use more number of inputs and outputs. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| Transactions that already use 3 inputs and 2 outputs will serve as the anonymity set for octojoin transactions with default values. It is possible to change defaults and use more number of inputs and outputs. | |
| Transactions that already use 3 inputs and 2 outputs will serve as the anonymity set for octojoin transactions with default values. It is possible to change defaults and use a higher number of inputs and outputs. |
jonatack
reviewed
Oct 8, 2024
|
|
||
| ====Swapped UTXOs==== | ||
|
|
||
| Swapping UTXOs off-chain will obscure the transaction's input ownership and history. It also adds more noise on-chain to make chain analysis difficult |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| Swapping UTXOs off-chain will obscure the transaction's input ownership and history. It also adds more noise on-chain to make chain analysis difficult | |
| Swapping UTXOs off-chain will obscure the transaction's input ownership and history. It also adds more noise on-chain to make chain analysis difficult. |
jonatack
reviewed
Oct 8, 2024
|
|
||
| ====Silent Payment Addresses==== | ||
|
|
||
| Sender pay require more than 1 output so silent payment addresses will be the best approach to generate new addresses with no interaction and maximum privacy. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Sender pay require more than 1 output" -> seems unclear, and isn't this always the case in a transaction, if I'm not confused
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.
I had written a blog post about the concept and it was shared on mailing list in July 2024. There wasn't any response on mailing list but I have discussed it with some developers and there seems to be lot of interest for the idea among users.
This is an initial draft and the pull request will help me complete the BIP ASAP.
TODO