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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble Post to : mimblewimble@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
