Your solution in the second part of the email does not solve the problem you indicated in the first part of your email.
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018, 23:41 Ryan Havar via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Right now it's just *way* too easy to spot the boundaries between > different wallets. There's a lot of things that contribute to that, but the > one that concerns me the most is the way wallets sort transaction inputs > and outputs. > > Some wallets and protocols (especially HW wallets) have a strong > preference for deterministic sorting (i.e. using bip69), while other > wallets have a lot of objections to this. > > I'm not sure I fully understand the objections, but I think they can be > summarized as "during the transition period there will be a lot of privacy > loss" and "if in the future someone wants to use bitcoin in a way that's > not compatible with bip69 their transactions will stick out heavily". > > I wonder if this impasse could be solved with deterministic sorting, but > based on a semi-secret. Like `sortingSecret = hmac(walletSeed, > "sortingSecret")` and then there's a standardized sort order based on the > sortingSecret. e.g. sort inputs/output by the `hash(data || > sortingSecret)`. Wallets could come up with their own way of computing > (or storing) the "sortingSecret" but from there it's standardized. > > I has the advantages of deterministic sorting (as long as you know the > sortingSecret) you can verify it's done correctly and externally looks > totally randomized. > > Am I missing something, or could this be the way forward? > > -Ryan > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
