Peter Todd discusses here a scheme where miners may be bribed into rejecting txs that don't include identity information:

https://petertodd.org/2016/mit-chainanchor-bribing-miners-to-regulate-bitcoin

> You don't understand. This is a non problem and if it were a problem, your solution doesn't work.

It must be so simple you can't explain it.

> Op, the problem is that if people's transactions could be made dependent on another person, they are not acting to their own interests. Buy linking their transactions to the censored one, their own transactions will also not confirm and that is detrimental to their own interests.

If the tx is invalid or miners are unable to accept it then over time they will fall out of the mempool willingly.

EDIT: If your talking about a reverse attack of some kind then we are ultimately talking about *valid* transactions miners chose not to process, which is censorship.

>  What exactly does the 'word' being spread about censorship actually accomplish? Since the majority of hashing power are colluding, they can do whatever they want, and no amount of social engineering will help that.

Without this they can cherry-pick individual transactions to not send, meaning the cost to censor a tx is what you are willing to pay in fees as one person. If you pay 0.1 BTC in fees the miner may have stronger interests than that amount to keep censoring the tx. If you can attach the txs together the cost of censoring one tx becomes amplified by each tx, so instead of losing 0.1 BTC over time miners would be choosing to lose the sum of all attached fees from txs that touch the chain of attachment.

> For censorship to be a real concern, such a transaction would never make it into the blockchain

I believe non-miners run mempools, is this correct?

> just because a minority of hashing power decides to censor your transaction doesn't mean the entire network will

Miners en-masse currently can decide to block transactions. With something like an attachment process this would become impossible as the word was spread about a tx being censored.

I'll just keep bumping this thread every week or so.

> This already exists.  It's called CPFP (Child Pays For Parent).

This requires coordination before the txs are made.

> Choosing to publish zero transactions is not rational behaviour

Currently happens multiple times per day. Check the blockchain an empty block is published every once in a while (Although they do this because they have poor internet)

> because a miner doing so loses out on collected fees to the next miner, the same is true of cherry picking individual transactions; even if one miner does this, the next guy has no reason to do so.

Except the cost is low. My $0.04 tx fee as a single user cannot compete with various interests of censorship. However, if my $0.04 was pooled together with other users who didnt want me to be censored it would balloon into a larger amount that would be very hard to convince all miners not to process.

Well it was a good idea not sure what else to do and I'm not interested in checking these forums often. Hope something like this eventually makes it's way into Bitcoin but I don't think I have the stomach to push it though layers of BS.

That's not true. Miners right now can choose to publish zero transactions in a block or they can cherry pick some transactions and not others. My goal is to ensure that nobody can ever have a tx censored that others do not want censored.

I spoke in IRC more about this.

In particular I was wrong to drag RBF into this, because it's a mempool thing, which I knew but simply forgot when making this post. I thought the best way to bring the topic up was to mention RBF since people are familiar with that concept and "bumping" a transaction.

Another user created this SE question: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/43003/is-there-a-way-to-create-a-transaction-that-it-can-only-be-confirmed-after-anoth

It more clearly summarizes the question as:


To elaborate on this I think if Bitcoin had something that could do this we could make it very difficult to censor transactions individually. If someone had a tx being censored they could go onto social media and share that tx and others could begin "attaching" to the censored tx to promote it's processing as miners wouldn't get the fee of any txs attached to the censored one.

Hi everyone. With RBF recently getting some exposure I was thinking more about ways to solve the problems that RBF solves without it. In particular, I see the blockchain more as a data structure made up of immutable pieces, and I don't like that RBF violates this to some degree. I would prefer a Bitcoin where people submit things to the network and any attempt to "undo" is a separate transaction.

It's possible my understanding of RBF or Bitcoin has caused me to miss something, but from what I know right now there is no way to submit a transaction that will only be valid if another transaction has already been placed into a block. Currently two parties would have to setup multisig or agree on a private token of some kind or in general cooperate together before the transaction is made.

If there was a system in place where you could "attach" a transaction to another in this way it could solve the problems RBF originally was supposed to solve, which is allowing you to send more to "bump" a transaction. This would be done by making another transaction with a miner fee to incentivize it to be placed into a block.

Likewise this could help solve the problem of miners publishing blocks with zero transactions in them. If each transaction could be "attached" to another in this way it could become very hard to censor a transaction that "the people" do not want censored. This could stop miners from censoring specific wallets or specific transactions unless they are willing to let that censorship balloon into more lost mining fees. Currently, we don't have any kind of censorship like this, but we do have lazy miners that produce small blocks about 6 times a day (I wrote a small tool here: https://fullblocks.github.io )

Please let me know if there is any way to do this currently or any BIPs that would allow for this.

Thanks. Easy transaction. Got Age of Empires II HD for $11.50, about $9 less than steam.

YOU ROCK!

Holy shit this thread is hilarious. "eMunie" - that sounds pretty funny to start, and the creator denoucnes Bitcoin but lurks and trolls on BTT ? WTF is going on - I think socialists will do anything before reconsidering the whole resource allocation problem apparently.

I think he did include a git signature:

a3a61fef43309b9fb23225df7910b03afc5465b9

I don't think Satoshi's goal was to hide forever because that doesn't matter. I think his goal was to hide while Bitcoin was still bootstrapping itself. I think enough time has passed and his risk should be considered lower. If anyone gets him there is nothing he can do to change Bitcoin now.

BFL please fire Josh as quick as possible. This is pathetic.

There is also this:

"An Efficient Divisible Electronic Cash Scheme"

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F3-540-44750-4_35

I only glanced but it basically talks about making a crypto currency with RSA...

I love the ignore button. Instead of replying to people I get to look next to their name, see bright orange, and know I don't have to waste my time explaining something to the person above me.

I don't think OP cares much about the moral issue at hand but the fact that it may need to be more publicly known that the wallet can highjack your funds if the operator desires. The common idea is that (probably incorrectly held, but held none the less) the public/private key cryptography protects you from them spending or doing something without your signature from the browser.