• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Can Dash Evolution make every transaction look DarkSent?

HinnomTX

Active member
So one of the features of Dash Evolution is, once you have friended someone, you can exchange 5 receive addresses so transacting with your friend is extremely simple. There will be no need to handle e.g. Xnu9vcCAZYNozX7ypFt2rLi3TFnbTUMX3Q directly.

So if friends can exchange 5 addresses, what about exchanging 20 or 30? Now let's assume Bob has done some Darksend mixing in his wallet, and all his coins are redenominated into 1 DASH and 0.1 DASH 'bills' each sitting on their own address. Now if Bob owes Alice 2.4 DASH for lunch, he can send it to Alice in a multi-RX address transaction:

1 DASH -> Alice's 1st address
1 DASH -> Alice's 2nd address
0.1 DASH -> Alice's 3rd address
0.1 DASH -> Alice's 4th address
0.1 DASH -> Alice's 5th address
0.1 DASH -> Alice's 6rd address

If Evolution is set up so nobody can re-use any receive addresses, won't that pretty much make the Dash blockchain look like a bunch of 0.1 and 1 DASH 'bills' flying around with no particular identifying features? After spending DASH that has been Darksent once, redenomination looks unnecessary, and remixing with other 'bills' may be optional.
 
It would improve anonimity and fungibility a lot if transactions were only sent in predetermined denominations, as you say: As long as the sender knows, enough of the receiver's addresses, it's perfectly possible....

... even better, having previously received a "deterministic seed" from the receiver, the sender can always "figure out" a new address belonging to the receiver, whenever he needs it.
 
As I recall from previous discussion, "mixing," won't be a part of Evolution? I think Evan is working on a new implementation. You have to consider that on blockchains such as Monero, it is impossible to visualize information such as sender, receiver, or amount, in an explorer. This is baked right into the protocol so I suspect we will be going a similar route (with different technology of course).

Pablo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It would improve anonimity and fungibility a lot if transactions were only sent in predetermined denominations, as you say: As long as the sender knows, enough of the receiver's addresses, it's perfectly possible....

... even better, having previously received a "deterministic seed" from the receiver, the sender can always "figure out" a new address belonging to the receiver, whenever he needs it.
Except that would expose everything about your account to someone else :p

Mixing is supposed to be a part of Evolution, but because your entrance to the system is through another node than the one doing the mixing, the masternodes are essentially blinded and thus one round of mixing is all you need.

This is a neat idea though :) Still, the person you send money to, even if you call them a "friend" may very well not be a person you want to know about your account. Such as your "friend" the telephone company, etc....
 
I never did get the answer as to why we need to get a batch of account numbers from "friends" yet we can always get them on the fly from merchants. Anyway, if we can get them on the fly, then we can get as many as needed and do what you propose. Maybe the problem is that the wallet has to be online to give you those addresses. I never thought of that before. A merchant would obviously always be online with their wallet but a normal user wouldn't. Unless the network could send them, but I don't think that's possible. Hummm, interesting.
 
Except that would expose everything about your account to someone else :p

(...)

Actually not, because (I don't know how to explain this technically, but...) with hierarchical deterministic addresses, from the "main secret seed" of a user, it is possible to calculate infinite sub-seeds, derived as branches from that previous main seed. The user could attribute to each of his "friends" one specific "sub-seed" with witch which this friend will be able to calculate infinite valid addresses for the inicial user (owner of the "main seed")....

... I have read about it somewhere. I'll have to find the source, though. But maybe some more advanced user may ratify (or maybe rectify) my words.

edit: witch lol which
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That would be very cool if I didn't feel a headache coming on from trying to think about it, LOL. Nah seriously, if that's possible, then we shouldn't share account addresses but "sub-seeds" :D And this could really save space on the blockchain while providing privacy, very cool idea.
 
Actually not, because (I don't know how to explain this technically, but...) with hierarchical deterministic addresses, from the "main secret seed" of a user, it is possible to calculate infinite sub-seeds, derived as branches from that previous main seed. The user could attribute to each of his "friends" one specific "sub-seed" with witch this friend will be able to calculate infinite valid addresses for the inicial user (owner of the "main seed")....

... I have read about it somewhere. I'll have to find the source, though. But maybe some more advanced user may ratify (or maybe rectify) my words.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blo...rrent-business-to-business-transactions-nmih0
 

Yes! That's it!

Recurrent business-to-business transactions: N(m/iH/0)
In case two business partners often transfer money, one can use the extended public key for the external chain of a specific account (M/i h/0) as a sort of "super address", allowing frequent transactions that cannot (easily) be associated, but without needing to request a new address for each payment. Such a mechanism could also be used by mining pool operators as variable payout address.
 
Back
Top