Re: Taproot NACK

Re: Taproot NACK
2021-02-27 16:14 ` Jeremy
  
From: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH @ 2021-02-24  3:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1220 bytes --]

Good Afternoon,

It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like features including the ability to hide transactions.

If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain.

A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full transaction is published on the blockchain. If that were to change so that transactions may be obfuscated from scrutiny then any government would have unlimited impetus to ban Bitcoin, and speculation has that is the reason India has been reported to have banned cryptocurrencies already.

I am in support of the expanded use case of Bitcoin without harming the established robust fairness and equal equity offered. The core functionality of Bitcoin, its values, must remain unaltered.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3619 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-02-24  3:23 LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH

  2021-02-28 11:36   ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
  
From: Jeremy @ 2021-02-27 16:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2478 bytes --]

I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy
features any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core,
taproot is a way to make transactions with embedded smart contracts less
expensive, done so in a manner that may marginally improve privacy
dependent on user behavior (but not in the monero-like way you mention).
For example, it makes it possible for lightning channels to look
structurally similar to single key wallets, but it does nothing inherently
to obfuscate the transaction graph as in monero.

Such "monero-like" transaction graph obfuscation may already exist in
Bitcoin via other techniques (coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning, etc)
with or without Taproot, so the point is further moot.

Do you have a source on your reporting?

You may wish to rescind your nack.


--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>


On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:46 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Good Afternoon,
>
> It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like features
> including the ability to hide transactions.
>
> If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain.
>
> A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full
> transaction is published on the blockchain. If that were to change so that
> transactions may be obfuscated from scrutiny then any government would have
> unlimited impetus to ban Bitcoin, and speculation has that is the reason
> India has been reported to have banned cryptocurrencies already.
>
> I am in support of the expanded use case of Bitcoin without harming the
> established robust fairness and equal equity offered. The core
> functionality of Bitcoin, its values, must remain unaltered.
>
> KING JAMES HRMH
> Great British Empire
>
> Regards,
> The Australian
> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> Wills
>
> et al.
>
>
> Willtech
> www.willtech.com.au
> www.go-overt.com
> and other projects
>
> earn.com/willtech
> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>
>
> m. 0487135719
> f. +61261470192
>
>
> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
> email if misdelivered.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6310 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-02-27 16:14 ` Jeremy

  2021-02-28 13:07     ` Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
  
From: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH @ 2021-02-28 11:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeremy, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4430 bytes --]

Good Evening,

Thank-you for your advice @JeremyRubin<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin> on the basis you advise, "Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features", I am prepred to withdraw my NACK notably that the existing feeatures of Bitcoin MUST be maintained, and whereby the UTXO of a transaction is identifiable, the PayTo Address, and the amount all without any obfuscation.

Lightning does not really provide obfuscation, it provides a result of a subset of transactions although the operation of the channel is observable to the parties.

The reports I were reading concerning the supposed operation of Taproot published in a public media channel may have been speculation or misinformation nonetheless it is prudent to conditionally reply as you see that I have. It is important not to allow things to slip through the cracks. As you may believe may astute reviewers could make a full disclosure to this list it is not to be expected.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au<mail://local/Sent/www.willtech.com.au>
www.go-overt.com<mail://local/Sent/www.go-overt.com>
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
________________________________
From: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>
Sent: Sunday, 28 February 2021 3:14 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core, taproot is a way to make transactions with embedded smart contracts less expensive, done so in a manner that may marginally improve privacy dependent on user behavior (but not in the monero-like way you mention). For example, it makes it possible for lightning channels to look structurally similar to single key wallets, but it does nothing inherently to obfuscate the transaction graph as in monero.

Such "monero-like" transaction graph obfuscation may already exist in Bitcoin via other techniques (coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning, etc) with or without Taproot, so the point is further moot.

Do you have a source on your reporting?

You may wish to rescind your nack.


--
@JeremyRubin<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin><https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>


On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:46 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
Good Afternoon,

It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like features including the ability to hide transactions.

If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain.

A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full transaction is published on the blockchain. If that were to change so that transactions may be obfuscated from scrutiny then any government would have unlimited impetus to ban Bitcoin, and speculation has that is the reason India has been reported to have banned cryptocurrencies already.

I am in support of the expanded use case of Bitcoin without harming the established robust fairness and equal equity offered. The core functionality of Bitcoin, its values, must remain unaltered.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au<http://www.willtech.com.au>
www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>
and other projects

earn.com/willtech<http://earn.com/willtech>
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson<http://linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson>


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 14626 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-02-28 11:36   ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH

  2021-03-01  1:34       ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
  
From: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces @ 2021-02-28 13:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5773 bytes --]

Hello LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH

I find a striking dichotomy between your concern of increased privacy in bitcoin and your link to a bitcoin mixer in your signature www.go-overt.com

At first your concerns seemed genuine but after seeing your promotion of a bitcoin mixer I'm thinking your concerns may be more profit motivated? I can't tell since you failed to disclose your relationship with the mixer.

Could you please clarify your association with the bitcoin mixer and moving forward could you please always do proper disclosure any time you're publically talking about bitcoin transaction privacy. It's only fair to do so as to not mislead people in an attempt to manipulate at worst and just a courteous practice at best.

Cheers
Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces


On Feb 28, 2021, 4:36 AM, at 4:36 AM, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>Good Evening,
>
>Thank-you for your advice @JeremyRubin<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
>on the basis you advise, "Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy
>features", I am prepred to withdraw my NACK notably that the existing
>feeatures of Bitcoin MUST be maintained, and whereby the UTXO of a
>transaction is identifiable, the PayTo Address, and the amount all
>without any obfuscation.
>
>Lightning does not really provide obfuscation, it provides a result of
>a subset of transactions although the operation of the channel is
>observable to the parties.
>
>The reports I were reading concerning the supposed operation of Taproot
>published in a public media channel may have been speculation or
>misinformation nonetheless it is prudent to conditionally reply as you
>see that I have. It is important not to allow things to slip through
>the cracks. As you may believe may astute reviewers could make a full
>disclosure to this list it is not to be expected.
>
>KING JAMES HRMH
>Great British Empire
>
>Regards,
>The Australian
>LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
>of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
>MR. Damian A. James Williamson
>Wills
>
>et al.
>
>
>Willtech
>www.willtech.com.au<mail://local/Sent/www.willtech.com.au>
>www.go-overt.com<mail://local/Sent/www.go-overt.com>
>and other projects
>
>earn.com/willtech
>linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>
>
>m. 0487135719
>f. +61261470192
>
>
>This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
>email if misdelivered.
>________________________________
>From: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>
>Sent: Sunday, 28 February 2021 3:14 AM
>To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin
>Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
>Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>
>I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy
>features any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core,
>taproot is a way to make transactions with embedded smart contracts
>less expensive, done so in a manner that may marginally improve privacy
>dependent on user behavior (but not in the monero-like way you
>mention). For example, it makes it possible for lightning channels to
>look structurally similar to single key wallets, but it does nothing
>inherently to obfuscate the transaction graph as in monero.
>
>Such "monero-like" transaction graph obfuscation may already exist in
>Bitcoin via other techniques (coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning,
>etc) with or without Taproot, so the point is further moot.
>
>Do you have a source on your reporting?
>
>You may wish to rescind your nack.
>
>
>--
>@JeremyRubin<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin><https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
>
>
>On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:46 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
>bitcoin-dev
><bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>>
>wrote:
>Good Afternoon,
>
>It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like features
>including the ability to hide transactions.
>
>If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain.
>
>A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full
>transaction is published on the blockchain. If that were to change so
>that transactions may be obfuscated from scrutiny then any government
>would have unlimited impetus to ban Bitcoin, and speculation has that
>is the reason India has been reported to have banned cryptocurrencies
>already.
>
>I am in support of the expanded use case of Bitcoin without harming the
>established robust fairness and equal equity offered. The core
>functionality of Bitcoin, its values, must remain unaltered.
>
>KING JAMES HRMH
>Great British Empire
>
>Regards,
>The Australian
>LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
>of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
>MR. Damian A. James Williamson
>Wills
>
>et al.
>
>
>Willtech
>www.willtech.com.au<http://www.willtech.com.au>
>www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>
>and other projects
>
>earn.com/willtech<http://earn.com/willtech>
>linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson<http://linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson>
>
>
>m. 0487135719
>f. +61261470192
>
>
>This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
>email if misdelivered.
>_______________________________________________
>bitcoin-dev mailing list
>bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto: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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 17535 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-02-28 13:07     ` Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces

  2021-03-01 22:37         ` Eric Voskuil
  
From: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH @ 2021-03-01  1:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion


[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9115 bytes --]

Good Afternoon,

I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my affiliation through the link in my email signature block.

My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values and the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are published in an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of information by any obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a privacy suitable for cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially without disturbing the existing consensus.

The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As you may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around looking in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to see where and how much you fill it up, and where you spend. Nonetheless, for an honest person, their wallet is available for government audit as are their financial affairs. This is consistent with the existing operation of consensus.

My full email signature block is a disclosure where I have some affiliation with the referenced website being that it carries at least some information that I have provided or that in some way I am associated perhaps only making use of their services. For example, I hardly make a profit from LinkedIn just my information is there. Also, I have made previous public disclosure of the affiliation. Bitcoin Mixer 2.0 is a partner mixer run by Jambler.io wherein I receive a service referral fee and am not in receipt of any part of the process transaction. The operation block diagram provided by Jambler.io is provided here and attached.
[cid:532a68da-7ec4-45b9-ba93-56f572752081]
[ip.bitcointalk.org.png]-Operation of Jambler.io partner mixer
https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png&t=622&c=gTi7r1cfh-yynw
from this thread  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5267588


The installation script provided by Jambler.io that is the basis of my referral website is also publicly published,
https://github.com/jambler-io/bitcoin-mixer

The disclosure for the partner program is available from Jambler.io however and is made prominently on my referral website. While it may seem lucrative at first I insist all partner profits are reportable on your personal income.
https://jambler.io/become-partner.php

I am certainly better than confident that you appreciate the difference between an open and transparent blockchain and the ability of the user to not reveal details of the content of their wallet publicly.

If further clarification is required may I suggest you pay a token and mix some Bitcoin wherein our discussion may then have some point of reference.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
________________________________
From: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail•com>
Sent: Monday, 1 March 2021 12:07 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

Hello LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH

I find a striking dichotomy between your concern of increased privacy in bitcoin and your link to a bitcoin mixer in your signature www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>

At first your concerns seemed genuine but after seeing your promotion of a bitcoin mixer I'm thinking your concerns may be more profit motivated? I can't tell since you failed to disclose your relationship with the mixer.

Could you please clarify your association with the bitcoin mixer and moving forward could you please always do proper disclosure any time you're publically talking about bitcoin transaction privacy. It's only fair to do so as to not mislead people in an attempt to manipulate at worst and just a courteous practice at best.

Cheers
Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
On Feb 28, 2021, at 4:36 AM, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
Good Evening,

Thank-you for your advice   @JeremyRubin<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>  on the basis you advise, "Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features", I am prepred to withdraw my NACK notably that the existing feeatures of Bitcoin MUST be maintained, and whereby the UTXO of a transaction is identifiable, the PayTo Address, and the amount all without any obfuscation.

Lightning does not really provide obfuscation, it provides a result of a subset of transactions although the operation of the channel is observable to the parties.

The reports I were reading concerning the supposed operation of Taproot published in a public media channel may have been speculation or misinformation nonetheless it is prudent to conditionally reply as you see that I have. It is important not to allow things to slip through the cracks. As you may believe may astute reviewers could make a full disclosure to this list it is not to be expected.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
________________________________
From: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>
Sent: Sunday, 28 February 2021 3:14 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core, taproot is a way to make transactions with embedded smart contracts less expensive, done so in a manner that may marginally improve privacy dependent on user behavior (but not in the monero-like way you mention). For example, it makes it possible for lightning channels to look structurally similar to single key wallets, but it does nothing inherently to obfuscate the transaction graph as in monero.

Such "monero-like" transaction graph obfuscation may already exist in Bitcoin via other techniques (coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning, etc) with or without Taproot, so the point is further moot.

Do you have a source on your reporting?

You may wish to rescind your nack.


--
@JeremyRubin<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin> <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>


On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:46 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
Good Afternoon,

It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like features including the ability to hide transactions.

If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain.

A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full transaction is published on the blockchain. If that were to change so that transactions may be obfuscated from scrutiny then any government would have unlimited impetus to ban Bitcoin, and speculation has that is the reason India has been reported to have banned cryptocurrencies already.

I am in support of the expanded use case of Bitcoin without harming the established robust fairness and equal equity offered. The core functionality of Bitcoin, its values, must remain unaltered.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au<http://www.willtech.com.au>
www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>
and other projects

earn.com/willtech<http://earn.com/willtech>
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson<http://linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson>


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto: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

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 23229 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #1.2: ip.bitcointalk.org.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 81913 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: ip.bitcointalk.org.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 81913 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-01  1:34       ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH

  2021-03-02  1:16           ` Daniel Edgecumbe
                             ` (2 more replies)
  
From: Eric Voskuil @ 2021-03-01 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9816 bytes --]

To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency” (increases privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously an argument against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)? 

And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person should have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are sufficient privacy?

Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the value proposition of Bitcoin?

e

> On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> ﻿
> Good Afternoon,
> 
> I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my affiliation through the link in my email signature block.
> 
> My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values and the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are published in an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of information by any obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a privacy suitable for cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially without disturbing the existing consensus.
> 
> The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As you may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around looking in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to see where and how much you fill it up, and where you spend. Nonetheless, for an honest person, their wallet is available for government audit as are their financial affairs. This is consistent with the existing operation of consensus.
> 
> My full email signature block is a disclosure where I have some affiliation with the referenced website being that it carries at least some information that I have provided or that in some way I am associated perhaps only making use of their services. For example, I hardly make a profit from LinkedIn just my information is there. Also, I have made previous public disclosure of the affiliation. Bitcoin Mixer 2.0 is a partner mixer run by Jambler.io wherein I receive a service referral fee and am not in receipt of any part of the process transaction. The operation block diagram provided by Jambler.io is provided here and attached.
> <ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
> 
> [ip.bitcointalk.org.png]-Operation of Jambler.io partner mixer
> https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png&t=622&c=gTi7r1cfh-yynw
> from this thread  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5267588
> 
> 
> The installation script provided by Jambler.io that is the basis of my referral website is also publicly published,
> https://github.com/jambler-io/bitcoin-mixer
> 
> The disclosure for the partner program is available from Jambler.io however and is made prominently on my referral website. While it may seem lucrative at first I insist all partner profits are reportable on your personal income.
> https://jambler.io/become-partner.php
> 
> I am certainly better than confident that you appreciate the difference between an open and transparent blockchain and the ability of the user to not reveal details of the content of their wallet publicly.
> 
> If further clarification is required may I suggest you pay a token and mix some Bitcoin wherein our discussion may then have some point of reference.
> 
> KING JAMES HRMH
> Great British Empire
> 
> Regards,
> The Australian
> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> Wills
> 
> et al.
> 
>  
> Willtech
> www.willtech.com.au
> www.go-overt.com
> and other projects
>  
> earn.com/willtech
> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
> 
> 
> m. 0487135719
> f. +61261470192
> 
> 
> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
> From: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail•com>
> Sent: Monday, 1 March 2021 12:07 AM
> To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>  
> Hello LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
> 
> I find a striking dichotomy between your concern of increased privacy in bitcoin and your link to a bitcoin mixer in your signature www.go-overt.com
> 
> At first your concerns seemed genuine but after seeing your promotion of a bitcoin mixer I'm thinking your concerns may be more profit motivated? I can't tell since you failed to disclose your relationship with the mixer.
> 
> Could you please clarify your association with the bitcoin mixer and moving forward could you please always do proper disclosure any time you're publically talking about bitcoin transaction privacy. It's only fair to do so as to not mislead people in an attempt to manipulate at worst and just a courteous practice at best.
> 
> Cheers
> Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
> On Feb 28, 2021, at 4:36 AM, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Good Evening,
> 
> Thank-you for your advice   @JeremyRubin  on the basis you advise, "Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features", I am prepred to withdraw my NACK notably that the existing feeatures of Bitcoin MUST be maintained, and whereby the UTXO of a transaction is identifiable, the PayTo Address, and the amount all without any obfuscation.
> 
> Lightning does not really provide obfuscation, it provides a result of a subset of transactions although the operation of the channel is observable to the parties.
> 
> The reports I were reading concerning the supposed operation of Taproot published in a public media channel may have been speculation or misinformation nonetheless it is prudent to conditionally reply as you see that I have. It is important not to allow things to slip through the cracks. As you may believe may astute reviewers could make a full disclosure to this list it is not to be expected.
> 
> KING JAMES HRMH
> Great British Empire
> 
> Regards,
> The Australian
> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> Wills
> 
> et al.
> 
>  
> Willtech
> www.willtech.com.au
> www.go-overt.com
> and other projects
>  
> earn.com/willtech
> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
> 
> 
> m. 0487135719
> f. +61261470192
> 
> 
> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
> From: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>
> Sent: Sunday, 28 February 2021 3:14 AM
> To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>  
> I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core, taproot is a way to make transactions with embedded smart contracts less expensive, done so in a manner that may marginally improve privacy dependent on user behavior (but not in the monero-like way you mention). For example, it makes it possible for lightning channels to look structurally similar to single key wallets, but it does nothing inherently to obfuscate the transaction graph as in monero. 
> 
> Such "monero-like" transaction graph obfuscation may already exist in Bitcoin via other techniques (coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning, etc) with or without Taproot, so the point is further moot. 
> 
> Do you have a source on your reporting?
> 
> You may wish to rescind your nack. 
> 
> 
> -- 
> @JeremyRubin
> 
> 
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:46 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote: 
> Good Afternoon,
> 
> It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like features including the ability to hide transactions.
> 
> If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain.
> 
> A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full transaction is published on the blockchain. If that were to change so that transactions may be obfuscated from scrutiny then any government would have unlimited impetus to ban Bitcoin, and speculation has that is the reason India has been reported to have banned cryptocurrencies already.
> 
> I am in support of the expanded use case of Bitcoin without harming the established robust fairness and equal equity offered. The core functionality of Bitcoin, its values, must remain unaltered. 
> 
> KING JAMES HRMH
> Great British Empire 
> 
> Regards,
> The Australian
> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> Wills
> 
> et al.
> 
>  
> Willtech
> www.willtech.com.au
> www.go-overt.com
> and other projects
>  
> earn.com/willtech
> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
> 
> 
> m. 0487135719
> f. +61261470192
> 
> 
> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
> _______________________________________________ 
> 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
> <ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 24217 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-01 22:37         ` Eric Voskuil

  2021-03-03  3:06             ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
  2021-03-02 11:56           ` Chris Belcher
  2021-03-03  2:54           ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
  
From: Daniel Edgecumbe @ 2021-03-02  1:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: M.K. Safi via bitcoin-dev

Any "transparency" in the blockchain, beyond that required for a participant to determine valid ownership, can only reasonably be thought of as a bug.

Today I spent approximately $5 at a chip shop in North London in cash. Besides the fact that I have voluntarily chosen to share this information, it is absolutely no concern of yourself or any other party that this transaction has occured.

Bitcoin is digital cash.

Daniel Edgecumbe | esotericnonsense
email@esotericnonsense•com | https://esotericnonsense.com

On Mon, Mar 1, 2021, at 22:37, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency” 
> (increases privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously 
> an argument against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)? 
> 
> And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person 
> should have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are 
> sufficient privacy?
> 
> Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the 
> value proposition of Bitcoin?
> 
> e
> 
> > On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > ﻿ 
> > Good Afternoon,
> > 
> > I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my affiliation through the link in my email signature block.
> > 
> > My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values and the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are published in an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of information by any obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a privacy suitable for cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially without disturbing the existing consensus.
> > 
> > The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As you may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around looking in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to see where and how much you fill it up, and where you spend. Nonetheless, for an honest person, their wallet is available for government audit as are their financial affairs. This is consistent with the existing operation of consensus.
> > 
> > My full email signature block is a disclosure where I have some affiliation with the referenced website being that it carries at least some information that I have provided or that in some way I am associated perhaps only making use of their services. For example, I hardly make a profit from LinkedIn just my information is there. Also, I have made previous public disclosure of the affiliation. Bitcoin Mixer 2.0 is a partner mixer run by Jambler.io wherein I receive a service referral fee and am not in receipt of any part of the process transaction. The operation block diagram provided by Jambler.io is provided here and attached.
> > <ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
> > 
> > [ip.bitcointalk.org.png]-Operation of Jambler.io partner mixer
> > https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png&t=622&c=gTi7r1cfh-yynw
> > from this thread  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5267588
> > 
> > 
> > The installation script provided by Jambler.io that is the basis of my referral website is also publicly published,
> > https://github.com/jambler-io/bitcoin-mixer
> > 
> > The disclosure for the partner program is available from Jambler.io however and is made prominently on my referral website. While it may seem lucrative at first I insist all partner profits are reportable on your personal income.
> > https://jambler.io/become-partner.php
> > 
> > I am certainly better than confident that you appreciate the difference between an open and transparent blockchain and the ability of the user to not reveal details of the content of their wallet publicly.
> > 
> > If further clarification is required may I suggest you pay a token and mix some Bitcoin wherein our discussion may then have some point of reference.
> > 
> > KING JAMES HRMH
> > Great British Empire
> > 
> > Regards,
> > The Australian
> > LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> > of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> > MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> > Wills
> > 
> > et al.
> > 
> >  
> > Willtech
> > www.willtech.com.au
> > www.go-overt.com
> > and other projects
> >  
> > earn.com/willtech
> > linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
> > 
> > 
> > m. 0487135719
> > f. +61261470192
> > 
> > 
> > This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
> > *From:* Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail•com>
> > *Sent:* Monday, 1 March 2021 12:07 AM
> > *To:* LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> > *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK 
> >  
> > Hello LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
> > 
> > I find a striking dichotomy between your concern of increased privacy in bitcoin and your link to a bitcoin mixer in your signature www.go-overt.com
> > 
> > At first your concerns seemed genuine but after seeing your promotion of a bitcoin mixer I'm thinking your concerns may be more profit motivated? I can't tell since you failed to disclose your relationship with the mixer.
> > 
> > Could you please clarify your association with the bitcoin mixer and moving forward could you please always do proper disclosure any time you're publically talking about bitcoin transaction privacy. It's only fair to do so as to not mislead people in an attempt to manipulate at worst and just a courteous practice at best.
> > 
> > Cheers
> > Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
> > On Feb 28, 2021, at 4:36 AM, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote: 
> >> Good Evening, 
> >> 
> >> Thank-you for your advice   @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>  on the basis you advise, "Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features", I am prepred to withdraw my NACK notably that the existing feeatures of Bitcoin MUST be maintained, and whereby the UTXO of a transaction is identifiable, the PayTo Address, and the amount all without any obfuscation. 
> >> 
> >> Lightning does not really provide obfuscation, it provides a result of a subset of transactions although the operation of the channel is observable to the parties. 
> >> 
> >> The reports I were reading concerning the supposed operation of Taproot published in a public media channel may have been speculation or misinformation nonetheless it is prudent to conditionally reply as you see that I have. It is important not to allow things to slip through the cracks. As you may believe may astute reviewers could make a full disclosure to this list it is not to be expected. 
> >> 
> >> KING JAMES HRMH 
> >> Great British Empire 
> >> 
> >> Regards, 
> >> The Australian 
> >> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH) 
> >> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire 
> >> MR. Damian A. James Williamson 
> >> Wills 
> >> 
> >> et al. 
> >> 
> >>   
> >> Willtech 
> >> www.willtech.com.au 
> >> www.go-overt.com 
> >> and other projects 
> >>   
> >> earn.com/willtech 
> >> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> m. 0487135719 
> >> f. +61261470192 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered. 
> >> *From:* Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>
> >> *Sent:* Sunday, 28 February 2021 3:14 AM
> >> *To:* LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> >> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK 
> >>   
> >> I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core, taproot is a way to make transactions with embedded smart contracts less expensive, done so in a manner that may marginally improve privacy dependent on user behavior (but not in the monero-like way you mention). For example, it makes it possible for lightning channels to look structurally similar to single key wallets, but it does nothing inherently to obfuscate the transaction graph as in monero. 
> >> 
> >> Such "monero-like" transaction graph obfuscation may already exist in Bitcoin via other techniques (coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning, etc) with or without Taproot, so the point is further moot. 
> >> 
> >> Do you have a source on your reporting? 
> >> 
> >> You may wish to rescind your nack. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>  <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:46 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote: 
> >>> Good Afternoon, 
> >>> 
> >>> It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like features including the ability to hide transactions. 
> >>> 
> >>> If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain. 
> >>> 
> >>> A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full transaction is published on the blockchain. If that were to change so that transactions may be obfuscated from scrutiny then any government would have unlimited impetus to ban Bitcoin, and speculation has that is the reason India has been reported to have banned cryptocurrencies already. 
> >>> 
> >>> I am in support of the expanded use case of Bitcoin without harming the established robust fairness and equal equity offered. The core functionality of Bitcoin, its values, must remain unaltered. 
> >>> 
> >>> KING JAMES HRMH 
> >>> Great British Empire 
> >>> 
> >>> Regards, 
> >>> The Australian 
> >>> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH) 
> >>> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire 
> >>> MR. Damian A. James Williamson 
> >>> Wills 
> >>> 
> >>> et al. 
> >>> 
> >>>   
> >>> Willtech 
> >>> www.willtech.com.au 
> >>> www.go-overt.com 
> >>> and other projects 
> >>>   
> >>> earn.com/willtech 
> >>> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> m. 0487135719 
> >>> f. +61261470192 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered. 
> >>> _______________________________________________ 
> >>> 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
> > <ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-01 22:37         ` Eric Voskuil
  2021-03-02  1:16           ` Daniel Edgecumbe

  2021-03-03 11:22             ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
  2021-03-03  2:54           ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
  
From: Chris Belcher @ 2021-03-02 11:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev

The idea of a fully-transparent bitcoin is dead and has been for many
years. This is because of various privacy tech such as CoinJoin,
Lightning Network, PayJoin, change avoidance, avoiding address reuse,
etc, along with a few new ones like CoinSwap and WabiSabi hopefully
coming soon.

On 01/03/2021 22:37, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency” (increases privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously an argument against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)? 
> 
> And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person should have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are sufficient privacy?
> 
> Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the value proposition of Bitcoin?
> 
> e
> 
>> On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> ﻿
>> Good Afternoon,
>>
>> I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my affiliation through the link in my email signature block.
>>
>> My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values and the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are published in an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of information by any obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a privacy suitable for cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially without disturbing the existing consensus.
>>
>> The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As you may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around looking in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to see where and how much you fill it up, and where you spend. Nonetheless, for an honest person, their wallet is available for government audit as are their financial affairs. This is consistent with the existing operation of consensus.
>>
>> My full email signature block is a disclosure where I have some affiliation with the referenced website being that it carries at least some information that I have provided or that in some way I am associated perhaps only making use of their services. For example, I hardly make a profit from LinkedIn just my information is there. Also, I have made previous public disclosure of the affiliation. Bitcoin Mixer 2.0 is a partner mixer run by Jambler.io wherein I receive a service referral fee and am not in receipt of any part of the process transaction. The operation block diagram provided by Jambler.io is provided here and attached.
>> <ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
>>
>> [ip.bitcointalk.org.png]-Operation of Jambler.io partner mixer
>> https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png&t=622&c=gTi7r1cfh-yynw
>> from this thread  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5267588
>>
>>
>> The installation script provided by Jambler.io that is the basis of my referral website is also publicly published,
>> https://github.com/jambler-io/bitcoin-mixer
>>
>> The disclosure for the partner program is available from Jambler.io however and is made prominently on my referral website. While it may seem lucrative at first I insist all partner profits are reportable on your personal income.
>> https://jambler.io/become-partner.php
>>
>> I am certainly better than confident that you appreciate the difference between an open and transparent blockchain and the ability of the user to not reveal details of the content of their wallet publicly.
>>
>> If further clarification is required may I suggest you pay a token and mix some Bitcoin wherein our discussion may then have some point of reference.
>>
>> KING JAMES HRMH
>> Great British Empire
>>
>> Regards,
>> The Australian
>> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
>> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
>> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
>> Wills
>>
>> et al.
>>
>>  
>> Willtech
>> www.willtech.com.au
>> www.go-overt.com
>> and other projects
>>  
>> earn.com/willtech
>> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>>
>>
>> m. 0487135719
>> f. +61261470192
>>
>>
>> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
>> From: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail•com>
>> Sent: Monday, 1 March 2021 12:07 AM
>> To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>>  
>> Hello LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
>>
>> I find a striking dichotomy between your concern of increased privacy in bitcoin and your link to a bitcoin mixer in your signature www.go-overt.com
>>
>> At first your concerns seemed genuine but after seeing your promotion of a bitcoin mixer I'm thinking your concerns may be more profit motivated? I can't tell since you failed to disclose your relationship with the mixer.
>>
>> Could you please clarify your association with the bitcoin mixer and moving forward could you please always do proper disclosure any time you're publically talking about bitcoin transaction privacy. It's only fair to do so as to not mislead people in an attempt to manipulate at worst and just a courteous practice at best.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
>> On Feb 28, 2021, at 4:36 AM, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> Good Evening,
>>
>> Thank-you for your advice   @JeremyRubin  on the basis you advise, "Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features", I am prepred to withdraw my NACK notably that the existing feeatures of Bitcoin MUST be maintained, and whereby the UTXO of a transaction is identifiable, the PayTo Address, and the amount all without any obfuscation.
>>
>> Lightning does not really provide obfuscation, it provides a result of a subset of transactions although the operation of the channel is observable to the parties.
>>
>> The reports I were reading concerning the supposed operation of Taproot published in a public media channel may have been speculation or misinformation nonetheless it is prudent to conditionally reply as you see that I have. It is important not to allow things to slip through the cracks. As you may believe may astute reviewers could make a full disclosure to this list it is not to be expected.
>>
>> KING JAMES HRMH
>> Great British Empire
>>
>> Regards,
>> The Australian
>> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
>> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
>> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
>> Wills
>>
>> et al.
>>
>>  
>> Willtech
>> www.willtech.com.au
>> www.go-overt.com
>> and other projects
>>  
>> earn.com/willtech
>> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>>
>>
>> m. 0487135719
>> f. +61261470192
>>
>>
>> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
>> From: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>
>> Sent: Sunday, 28 February 2021 3:14 AM
>> To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>>  
>> I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core, taproot is a way to make transactions with embedded smart contracts less expensive, done so in a manner that may marginally improve privacy dependent on user behavior (but not in the monero-like way you mention). For example, it makes it possible for lightning channels to look structurally similar to single key wallets, but it does nothing inherently to obfuscate the transaction graph as in monero. 
>>
>> Such "monero-like" transaction graph obfuscation may already exist in Bitcoin via other techniques (coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning, etc) with or without Taproot, so the point is further moot. 
>>
>> Do you have a source on your reporting?
>>
>> You may wish to rescind your nack. 
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> @JeremyRubin
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:46 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote: 
>> Good Afternoon,
>>
>> It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like features including the ability to hide transactions.
>>
>> If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain.
>>
>> A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full transaction is published on the blockchain. If that were to change so that transactions may be obfuscated from scrutiny then any government would have unlimited impetus to ban Bitcoin, and speculation has that is the reason India has been reported to have banned cryptocurrencies already.
>>
>> I am in support of the expanded use case of Bitcoin without harming the established robust fairness and equal equity offered. The core functionality of Bitcoin, its values, must remain unaltered. 
>>
>> KING JAMES HRMH
>> Great British Empire 
>>
>> Regards,
>> The Australian
>> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
>> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
>> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
>> Wills
>>
>> et al.
>>
>>  
>> Willtech
>> www.willtech.com.au
>> www.go-overt.com
>> and other projects
>>  
>> earn.com/willtech
>> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>>
>>
>> m. 0487135719
>> f. +61261470192
>>
>>
>> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
>> _______________________________________________ 
>> 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
>> <ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-01 22:37         ` Eric Voskuil
  2021-03-02  1:16           ` Daniel Edgecumbe
  2021-03-02 11:56           ` Chris Belcher

  2021-03-03 11:55             ` eric
  2021-03-03 14:32             ` Thomas Hartman
  
From: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH @ 2021-03-03  2:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Eric Voskuil, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 11787 bytes --]

Good Afternoon,

All people are entitled to privacy in their purse, and all transactions should be open to the scrutiny of an honest government. You can debate whether any government is honest. Mixing does not remove the record from the public ledger, where it is possible to see that any Bitcoin has transferred from an UTXO to some Pay-To address even with some amount of transaction in between them. The value proposition is the same https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jOJk30eQs - because people will trust the system; people trust the existing consensus.

Let us dispense with the screen and deal with the issue only. If it is not necessary to maintain consensus then what is consensus?

The intrinsic value of Bitcoin is because of the existing consensus. Even if any proposal gains consensus there is no objective way to show it improves the intrinsic value without trialing and the possibility of failure and so protecting the existing consensus should be the highest value. This understanding is the reason BCH exists in addition to BTC Bitcoin.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
________________________________
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil•org>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 9:37 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency” (increases privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously an argument against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)?

And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person should have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are sufficient privacy?

Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the value proposition of Bitcoin?

e

On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

﻿
Good Afternoon,

I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my affiliation through the link in my email signature block.

My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values and the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are published in an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of information by any obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a privacy suitable for cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially without disturbing the existing consensus.

The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As you may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around looking in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to see where and how much you fill it up, and where you spend. Nonetheless, for an honest person, their wallet is available for government audit as are their financial affairs. This is consistent with the existing operation of consensus.

My full email signature block is a disclosure where I have some affiliation with the referenced website being that it carries at least some information that I have provided or that in some way I am associated perhaps only making use of their services. For example, I hardly make a profit from LinkedIn just my information is there. Also, I have made previous public disclosure of the affiliation. Bitcoin Mixer 2.0 is a partner mixer run by Jambler.io wherein I receive a service referral fee and am not in receipt of any part of the process transaction. The operation block diagram provided by Jambler.io is provided here and attached.
<ip.bitcointalk.org.png>

[ip.bitcointalk.org.png]-Operation of Jambler.io partner mixer
https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png&t=622&c=gTi7r1cfh-yynw
from this thread  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5267588


The installation script provided by Jambler.io that is the basis of my referral website is also publicly published,
https://github.com/jambler-io/bitcoin-mixer

The disclosure for the partner program is available from Jambler.io however and is made prominently on my referral website. While it may seem lucrative at first I insist all partner profits are reportable on your personal income.
https://jambler.io/become-partner.php

I am certainly better than confident that you appreciate the difference between an open and transparent blockchain and the ability of the user to not reveal details of the content of their wallet publicly.

If further clarification is required may I suggest you pay a token and mix some Bitcoin wherein our discussion may then have some point of reference.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
________________________________
From: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail•com>
Sent: Monday, 1 March 2021 12:07 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

Hello LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH

I find a striking dichotomy between your concern of increased privacy in bitcoin and your link to a bitcoin mixer in your signature www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>

At first your concerns seemed genuine but after seeing your promotion of a bitcoin mixer I'm thinking your concerns may be more profit motivated? I can't tell since you failed to disclose your relationship with the mixer.

Could you please clarify your association with the bitcoin mixer and moving forward could you please always do proper disclosure any time you're publically talking about bitcoin transaction privacy. It's only fair to do so as to not mislead people in an attempt to manipulate at worst and just a courteous practice at best.

Cheers
Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
On Feb 28, 2021, at 4:36 AM, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
Good Evening,

Thank-you for your advice   @JeremyRubin<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>  on the basis you advise, "Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features", I am prepred to withdraw my NACK notably that the existing feeatures of Bitcoin MUST be maintained, and whereby the UTXO of a transaction is identifiable, the PayTo Address, and the amount all without any obfuscation.

Lightning does not really provide obfuscation, it provides a result of a subset of transactions although the operation of the channel is observable to the parties.

The reports I were reading concerning the supposed operation of Taproot published in a public media channel may have been speculation or misinformation nonetheless it is prudent to conditionally reply as you see that I have. It is important not to allow things to slip through the cracks. As you may believe may astute reviewers could make a full disclosure to this list it is not to be expected.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
________________________________
From: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>
Sent: Sunday, 28 February 2021 3:14 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core, taproot is a way to make transactions with embedded smart contracts less expensive, done so in a manner that may marginally improve privacy dependent on user behavior (but not in the monero-like way you mention). For example, it makes it possible for lightning channels to look structurally similar to single key wallets, but it does nothing inherently to obfuscate the transaction graph as in monero.

Such "monero-like" transaction graph obfuscation may already exist in Bitcoin via other techniques (coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning, etc) with or without Taproot, so the point is further moot.

Do you have a source on your reporting?

You may wish to rescind your nack.


--
@JeremyRubin<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin> <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>


On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:46 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
Good Afternoon,

It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like features including the ability to hide transactions.

If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain.

A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full transaction is published on the blockchain. If that were to change so that transactions may be obfuscated from scrutiny then any government would have unlimited impetus to ban Bitcoin, and speculation has that is the reason India has been reported to have banned cryptocurrencies already.

I am in support of the expanded use case of Bitcoin without harming the established robust fairness and equal equity offered. The core functionality of Bitcoin, its values, must remain unaltered.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au<http://www.willtech.com.au>
www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>
and other projects

earn.com/willtech<http://earn.com/willtech>
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson<http://linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson>


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto: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

<ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 34414 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-02  1:16           ` Daniel Edgecumbe

  2021-03-03 11:58               ` eric
  2021-03-03 14:49               ` Erik Aronesty
  
From: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH @ 2021-03-03  3:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: M.K. Safi via bitcoin-dev, Daniel Edgecumbe

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 13404 bytes --]

"Today I spent approximately $5 at a chip shop in North London in cash. Besides the fact that I have voluntarily chosen to share this information, it is absolutely no concern of yourself or any other party that this transaction has occured."

Good Afternoon,

Requiring little argument I concur, privacy allows that you do not have snoops and researchers following you around looking in your purse as you transact. For the general public, how much you carry in your purse and where you get it from is none of their business. However, your employer is required to report to the government a record of pay, or at least maintain that record, and the store where you made a purchase similarly to keep records so that taxes can be paid. From their perspective, you do not need to know how much they keep in their drawer. Bitcoin directly allows your purse to be private and for the transaction ledger to take the scrutiny anyone should be able to apply to prove the ledger is honest. Maintaining an argument that consensus requires the ledger to be honest does not prove that it is honest.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
________________________________
From: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists•linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Daniel Edgecumbe via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 12:16 PM
To: M.K. Safi via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

Any "transparency" in the blockchain, beyond that required for a participant to determine valid ownership, can only reasonably be thought of as a bug.

Today I spent approximately $5 at a chip shop in North London in cash. Besides the fact that I have voluntarily chosen to share this information, it is absolutely no concern of yourself or any other party that this transaction has occured.

Bitcoin is digital cash.

Daniel Edgecumbe | esotericnonsense
email@esotericnonsense•com | https://esotericnonsense.com

On Mon, Mar 1, 2021, at 22:37, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency”
> (increases privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously
> an argument against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)?
>
> And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person
> should have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are
> sufficient privacy?
>
> Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the
> value proposition of Bitcoin?
>
> e
>
> > On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > ﻿
> > Good Afternoon,
> >
> > I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my affiliation through the link in my email signature block.
> >
> > My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values and the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are published in an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of information by any obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a privacy suitable for cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially without disturbing the existing consensus.
> >
> > The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As you may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around looking in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to see where and how much you fill it up, and where you spend. Nonetheless, for an honest person, their wallet is available for government audit as are their financial affairs. This is consistent with the existing operation of consensus.
> >
> > My full email signature block is a disclosure where I have some affiliation with the referenced website being that it carries at least some information that I have provided or that in some way I am associated perhaps only making use of their services. For example, I hardly make a profit from LinkedIn just my information is there. Also, I have made previous public disclosure of the affiliation. Bitcoin Mixer 2.0 is a partner mixer run by Jambler.io wherein I receive a service referral fee and am not in receipt of any part of the process transaction. The operation block diagram provided by Jambler.io is provided here and attached.
> > <ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
> >
> > [ip.bitcointalk.org.png]-Operation of Jambler.io partner mixer
> > https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png&t=622&c=gTi7r1cfh-yynw
> > from this thread  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5267588
> >
> >
> > The installation script provided by Jambler.io that is the basis of my referral website is also publicly published,
> > https://github.com/jambler-io/bitcoin-mixer
> >
> > The disclosure for the partner program is available from Jambler.io however and is made prominently on my referral website. While it may seem lucrative at first I insist all partner profits are reportable on your personal income.
> > https://jambler.io/become-partner.php
> >
> > I am certainly better than confident that you appreciate the difference between an open and transparent blockchain and the ability of the user to not reveal details of the content of their wallet publicly.
> >
> > If further clarification is required may I suggest you pay a token and mix some Bitcoin wherein our discussion may then have some point of reference.
> >
> > KING JAMES HRMH
> > Great British Empire
> >
> > Regards,
> > The Australian
> > LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> > of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> > MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> > Wills
> >
> > et al.
> >
> >
> > Willtech
> > www.willtech.com.au<http://www.willtech.com.au>
> > www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>
> > and other projects
> >
> > earn.com/willtech
> > linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
> >
> >
> > m. 0487135719
> > f. +61261470192
> >
> >
> > This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
> > *From:* Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail•com>
> > *Sent:* Monday, 1 March 2021 12:07 AM
> > *To:* LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> > *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
> >
> > Hello LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
> >
> > I find a striking dichotomy between your concern of increased privacy in bitcoin and your link to a bitcoin mixer in your signature www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>
> >
> > At first your concerns seemed genuine but after seeing your promotion of a bitcoin mixer I'm thinking your concerns may be more profit motivated? I can't tell since you failed to disclose your relationship with the mixer.
> >
> > Could you please clarify your association with the bitcoin mixer and moving forward could you please always do proper disclosure any time you're publically talking about bitcoin transaction privacy. It's only fair to do so as to not mislead people in an attempt to manipulate at worst and just a courteous practice at best.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
> > On Feb 28, 2021, at 4:36 AM, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> Good Evening,
> >>
> >> Thank-you for your advice   @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>  on the basis you advise, "Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features", I am prepred to withdraw my NACK notably that the existing feeatures of Bitcoin MUST be maintained, and whereby the UTXO of a transaction is identifiable, the PayTo Address, and the amount all without any obfuscation.
> >>
> >> Lightning does not really provide obfuscation, it provides a result of a subset of transactions although the operation of the channel is observable to the parties.
> >>
> >> The reports I were reading concerning the supposed operation of Taproot published in a public media channel may have been speculation or misinformation nonetheless it is prudent to conditionally reply as you see that I have. It is important not to allow things to slip through the cracks. As you may believe may astute reviewers could make a full disclosure to this list it is not to be expected.
> >>
> >> KING JAMES HRMH
> >> Great British Empire
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> The Australian
> >> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> >> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> >> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> >> Wills
> >>
> >> et al.
> >>
> >>
> >> Willtech
> >> www.willtech.com.au<http://www.willtech.com.au>
> >> www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>
> >> and other projects
> >>
> >> earn.com/willtech
> >> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
> >>
> >>
> >> m. 0487135719
> >> f. +61261470192
> >>
> >>
> >> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
> >> *From:* Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>
> >> *Sent:* Sunday, 28 February 2021 3:14 AM
> >> *To:* LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> >> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
> >>
> >> I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core, taproot is a way to make transactions with embedded smart contracts less expensive, done so in a manner that may marginally improve privacy dependent on user behavior (but not in the monero-like way you mention). For example, it makes it possible for lightning channels to look structurally similar to single key wallets, but it does nothing inherently to obfuscate the transaction graph as in monero.
> >>
> >> Such "monero-like" transaction graph obfuscation may already exist in Bitcoin via other techniques (coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning, etc) with or without Taproot, so the point is further moot.
> >>
> >> Do you have a source on your reporting?
> >>
> >> You may wish to rescind your nack.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>  <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:46 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>> Good Afternoon,
> >>>
> >>> It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like features including the ability to hide transactions.
> >>>
> >>> If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain.
> >>>
> >>> A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full transaction is published on the blockchain. If that were to change so that transactions may be obfuscated from scrutiny then any government would have unlimited impetus to ban Bitcoin, and speculation has that is the reason India has been reported to have banned cryptocurrencies already.
> >>>
> >>> I am in support of the expanded use case of Bitcoin without harming the established robust fairness and equal equity offered. The core functionality of Bitcoin, its values, must remain unaltered.
> >>>
> >>> KING JAMES HRMH
> >>> Great British Empire
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> The Australian
> >>> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> >>> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> >>> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> >>> Wills
> >>>
> >>> et al.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Willtech
> >>> www.willtech.com.au<http://www.willtech.com.au>
> >>> www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>
> >>> and other projects
> >>>
> >>> earn.com/willtech
> >>> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> m. 0487135719
> >>> f. +61261470192
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> > <ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 19168 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-02 11:56           ` Chris Belcher

  2021-03-16  2:11               ` ZmnSCPxj
  
From: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH @ 2021-03-03 11:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev, Chris Belcher

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 12269 bytes --]

Good Afternoon,

No-one has yet demonstrated that Conjoin or using Wasabi wallet is secure if it relies on third-parties. Are the transaction not forwarded partially signed as with an SPV wallet? So it is possible the SPV server cannot redirect funds if dishonest? SPV wallets are secure producing fully signed transactions. A ConJoin transaction signs for the UTXO and forwards it to be included signed for in another larger transaction with many inputs and outputs. Also, none of those you mention is inherently a Privacy Technology. Transparency is one of the key articles of value in Bitcoin because it prevents fraud.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
________________________________
From: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists•linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Chris Belcher via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 10:56 PM
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

The idea of a fully-transparent bitcoin is dead and has been for many
years. This is because of various privacy tech such as CoinJoin,
Lightning Network, PayJoin, change avoidance, avoiding address reuse,
etc, along with a few new ones like CoinSwap and WabiSabi hopefully
coming soon.

On 01/03/2021 22:37, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency” (increases privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously an argument against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)?
>
> And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person should have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are sufficient privacy?
>
> Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the value proposition of Bitcoin?
>
> e
>
>> On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> ﻿
>> Good Afternoon,
>>
>> I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my affiliation through the link in my email signature block.
>>
>> My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values and the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are published in an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of information by any obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a privacy suitable for cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially without disturbing the existing consensus.
>>
>> The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As you may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around looking in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to see where and how much you fill it up, and where you spend. Nonetheless, for an honest person, their wallet is available for government audit as are their financial affairs. This is consistent with the existing operation of consensus.
>>
>> My full email signature block is a disclosure where I have some affiliation with the referenced website being that it carries at least some information that I have provided or that in some way I am associated perhaps only making use of their services. For example, I hardly make a profit from LinkedIn just my information is there. Also, I have made previous public disclosure of the affiliation. Bitcoin Mixer 2.0 is a partner mixer run by Jambler.io wherein I receive a service referral fee and am not in receipt of any part of the process transaction. The operation block diagram provided by Jambler.io is provided here and attached.
>> <ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
>>
>> [ip.bitcointalk.org.png]-Operation of Jambler.io partner mixer
>> https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png&t=622&c=gTi7r1cfh-yynw
>> from this thread  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5267588
>>
>>
>> The installation script provided by Jambler.io that is the basis of my referral website is also publicly published,
>> https://github.com/jambler-io/bitcoin-mixer
>>
>> The disclosure for the partner program is available from Jambler.io however and is made prominently on my referral website. While it may seem lucrative at first I insist all partner profits are reportable on your personal income.
>> https://jambler.io/become-partner.php
>>
>> I am certainly better than confident that you appreciate the difference between an open and transparent blockchain and the ability of the user to not reveal details of the content of their wallet publicly.
>>
>> If further clarification is required may I suggest you pay a token and mix some Bitcoin wherein our discussion may then have some point of reference.
>>
>> KING JAMES HRMH
>> Great British Empire
>>
>> Regards,
>> The Australian
>> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
>> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
>> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
>> Wills
>>
>> et al.
>>
>>
>> Willtech
>> www.willtech.com.au<http://www.willtech.com.au>
>> www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>
>> and other projects
>>
>> earn.com/willtech
>> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>>
>>
>> m. 0487135719
>> f. +61261470192
>>
>>
>> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
>> From: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail•com>
>> Sent: Monday, 1 March 2021 12:07 AM
>> To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>>
>> Hello LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
>>
>> I find a striking dichotomy between your concern of increased privacy in bitcoin and your link to a bitcoin mixer in your signature www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>
>>
>> At first your concerns seemed genuine but after seeing your promotion of a bitcoin mixer I'm thinking your concerns may be more profit motivated? I can't tell since you failed to disclose your relationship with the mixer.
>>
>> Could you please clarify your association with the bitcoin mixer and moving forward could you please always do proper disclosure any time you're publically talking about bitcoin transaction privacy. It's only fair to do so as to not mislead people in an attempt to manipulate at worst and just a courteous practice at best.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
>> On Feb 28, 2021, at 4:36 AM, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> Good Evening,
>>
>> Thank-you for your advice   @JeremyRubin  on the basis you advise, "Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features", I am prepred to withdraw my NACK notably that the existing feeatures of Bitcoin MUST be maintained, and whereby the UTXO of a transaction is identifiable, the PayTo Address, and the amount all without any obfuscation.
>>
>> Lightning does not really provide obfuscation, it provides a result of a subset of transactions although the operation of the channel is observable to the parties.
>>
>> The reports I were reading concerning the supposed operation of Taproot published in a public media channel may have been speculation or misinformation nonetheless it is prudent to conditionally reply as you see that I have. It is important not to allow things to slip through the cracks. As you may believe may astute reviewers could make a full disclosure to this list it is not to be expected.
>>
>> KING JAMES HRMH
>> Great British Empire
>>
>> Regards,
>> The Australian
>> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
>> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
>> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
>> Wills
>>
>> et al.
>>
>>
>> Willtech
>> www.willtech.com.au<http://www.willtech.com.au>
>> www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>
>> and other projects
>>
>> earn.com/willtech
>> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>>
>>
>> m. 0487135719
>> f. +61261470192
>>
>>
>> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
>> From: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>
>> Sent: Sunday, 28 February 2021 3:14 AM
>> To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>>
>> I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core, taproot is a way to make transactions with embedded smart contracts less expensive, done so in a manner that may marginally improve privacy dependent on user behavior (but not in the monero-like way you mention). For example, it makes it possible for lightning channels to look structurally similar to single key wallets, but it does nothing inherently to obfuscate the transaction graph as in monero.
>>
>> Such "monero-like" transaction graph obfuscation may already exist in Bitcoin via other techniques (coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning, etc) with or without Taproot, so the point is further moot.
>>
>> Do you have a source on your reporting?
>>
>> You may wish to rescind your nack.
>>
>>
>> --
>> @JeremyRubin
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:46 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> Good Afternoon,
>>
>> It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like features including the ability to hide transactions.
>>
>> If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain.
>>
>> A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full transaction is published on the blockchain. If that were to change so that transactions may be obfuscated from scrutiny then any government would have unlimited impetus to ban Bitcoin, and speculation has that is the reason India has been reported to have banned cryptocurrencies already.
>>
>> I am in support of the expanded use case of Bitcoin without harming the established robust fairness and equal equity offered. The core functionality of Bitcoin, its values, must remain unaltered.
>>
>> KING JAMES HRMH
>> Great British Empire
>>
>> Regards,
>> The Australian
>> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
>> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
>> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
>> Wills
>>
>> et al.
>>
>>
>> Willtech
>> www.willtech.com.au<http://www.willtech.com.au>
>> www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>
>> and other projects
>>
>> earn.com/willtech
>> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>>
>>
>> m. 0487135719
>> f. +61261470192
>>
>>
>> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> <ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 16365 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-03  2:54           ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH

  2021-03-04  4:53               ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
  2021-03-03 14:32             ` Thomas Hartman
  
From: eric @ 2021-03-03 11:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 'LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH',
	'Bitcoin Protocol Discussion'

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 14293 bytes --]

> and all transactions should be open to the scrutiny of an honest government.

 

From what do you derive the moral judgement “should” in this context?

 

> The value proposition is … because people will trust the system?

 

So, it’s valuable because it’s trusted? Trusted to do what exactly? What that government money doesn’t already do, specifically.

 

> If it is not necessary to maintain consensus then what is consensus?

 

Nothing is “necessary”. Consensus is an agreement among people. It’s voluntary. Any person can choose to leave, create or join another consensus, or stay where they are.

 

> BCH exists in addition to BTC Bitcoin.

 

Exactly, people are free to do what they want. Nobody “should” do anything except that which they want to do. This and this alone is the “highest value” if one accepts the moral principle of non-aggression. You do not appear to, and I’m afraid that may be well outside the consensus view among core bitcoin developers (the people you are talking to).

 

e

 

From: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au> 
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 6:55 PM
To: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil•org>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

 

Good Afternoon, 

 

All people are entitled to privacy in their purse, and all transactions should be open to the scrutiny of an honest government. You can debate whether any government is honest. Mixing does not remove the record from the public ledger, where it is possible to see that any Bitcoin has transferred from an UTXO to some Pay-To address even with some amount of transaction in between them. The value proposition is the same  <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jOJk30eQs> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jOJk30eQs - because people will trust the system; people trust the existing consensus.

 

Let us dispense with the screen and deal with the issue only. If it is not necessary to maintain consensus then what is consensus?

 

The intrinsic value of Bitcoin is because of the existing consensus. Even if any proposal gains consensus there is no objective way to show it improves the intrinsic value without trialing and the possibility of failure and so protecting the existing consensus should be the highest value. This understanding is the reason BCH exists in addition to BTC Bitcoin.

 

KING JAMES HRMH

Great British Empire

 

Regards,

The Australian

LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)

of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire

MR. Damian A. James Williamson

Wills

 

et al.

 

 

Willtech

www.willtech.com.au

www.go-overt.com

and other projects

 

earn.com/willtech

linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson

 

 

m. 0487135719

f. +61261470192

 

 

This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered. 

  _____  

From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil•org <mailto:eric@voskuil•org> >
Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 9:37 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au <mailto:willtech@live•com.au> >; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> >
Cc: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail•com <mailto:arielluaces@gmail•com> >
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK 

 

To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency” (increases privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously an argument against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)? 

 

And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person should have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are sufficient privacy?

 

Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the value proposition of Bitcoin?

 

e





On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> > wrote:

﻿ 

Good Afternoon,

 

I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my affiliation through the link in my email signature block.

 

My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values and the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are published in an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of information by any obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a privacy suitable for cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially without disturbing the existing consensus.

 

The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As you may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around looking in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to see where and how much you fill it up, and where you spend. Nonetheless, for an honest person, their wallet is available for government audit as are their financial affairs. This is consistent with the existing operation of consensus.

 

My full email signature block is a disclosure where I have some affiliation with the referenced website being that it carries at least some information that I have provided or that in some way I am associated perhaps only making use of their services. For example, I hardly make a profit from LinkedIn just my information is there. Also, I have made previous public disclosure of the affiliation. Bitcoin Mixer 2.0 is a partner mixer run by Jambler.io wherein I receive a service referral fee and am not in receipt of any part of the process transaction. The operation block diagram provided by Jambler.io is provided here and attached.

<ip.bitcointalk.org.png>

 

[ip.bitcointalk.org.png]-Operation of Jambler.io partner mixer

https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png <https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png&t=622&c=gTi7r1cfh-yynw> &t=622&c=gTi7r1cfh-yynw

from this thread  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5267588

 

 

The installation script provided by Jambler.io that is the basis of my referral website is also publicly published,

https://github.com/jambler-io/bitcoin-mixer

 

The disclosure for the partner program is available from Jambler.io however and is made prominently on my referral website. While it may seem lucrative at first I insist all partner profits are reportable on your personal income.

https://jambler.io/become-partner.php

 

I am certainly better than confident that you appreciate the difference between an open and transparent blockchain and the ability of the user to not reveal details of the content of their wallet publicly.

 

If further clarification is required may I suggest you pay a token and mix some Bitcoin wherein our discussion may then have some point of reference.

 

KING JAMES HRMH

Great British Empire

 

Regards,

The Australian

LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)

of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire

MR. Damian A. James Williamson

Wills

 

et al.

 

 

Willtech

www.willtech.com.au <http://www.willtech.com.au> 

www.go-overt.com <http://www.go-overt.com> 

and other projects

 

earn.com/willtech

linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson

 

 

m. 0487135719

f. +61261470192

 

 

This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.

  _____  

From: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail•com <mailto:arielluaces@gmail•com> >
Sent: Monday, 1 March 2021 12:07 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au <mailto:willtech@live•com.au> >; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> >
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK 

 

Hello LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH

I find a striking dichotomy between your concern of increased privacy in bitcoin and your link to a bitcoin mixer in your signature www.go-overt.com <http://www.go-overt.com> 

At first your concerns seemed genuine but after seeing your promotion of a bitcoin mixer I'm thinking your concerns may be more profit motivated? I can't tell since you failed to disclose your relationship with the mixer.

Could you please clarify your association with the bitcoin mixer and moving forward could you please always do proper disclosure any time you're publically talking about bitcoin transaction privacy. It's only fair to do so as to not mislead people in an attempt to manipulate at worst and just a courteous practice at best.

Cheers

Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces

On Feb 28, 2021, at 4:36 AM, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> > wrote: 

Good Evening, 

 

Thank-you for your advice   @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>   on the basis you advise, "Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features", I am prepred to withdraw my NACK notably that the existing feeatures of Bitcoin MUST be maintained, and whereby the UTXO of a transaction is identifiable, the PayTo Address, and the amount all without any obfuscation. 

 

Lightning does not really provide obfuscation, it provides a result of a subset of transactions although the operation of the channel is observable to the parties. 

 

The reports I were reading concerning the supposed operation of Taproot published in a public media channel may have been speculation or misinformation nonetheless it is prudent to conditionally reply as you see that I have. It is important not to allow things to slip through the cracks. As you may believe may astute reviewers could make a full disclosure to this list it is not to be expected. 

 

KING JAMES HRMH 

Great British Empire 

 

Regards, 

The Australian 

LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH) 

of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire 

MR. Damian A. James Williamson 

Wills 

 

et al. 

 

  

Willtech 

www.willtech.com.au 

www.go-overt.com 

and other projects 

  

earn.com/willtech 

linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson 

 

 

m. 0487135719 

f. +61261470192 

 

 

This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered. 

  _____  

From: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>
Sent: Sunday, 28 February 2021 3:14 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au <mailto:willtech@live•com.au> >; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> >
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK 

  

I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core, taproot is a way to make transactions with embedded smart contracts less expensive, done so in a manner that may marginally improve privacy dependent on user behavior (but not in the monero-like way you mention). For example, it makes it possible for lightning channels to look structurally similar to single key wallets, but it does nothing inherently to obfuscate the transaction graph as in monero. 

 

Such "monero-like" transaction graph obfuscation may already exist in Bitcoin via other techniques (coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning, etc) with or without Taproot, so the point is further moot. 

 

Do you have a source on your reporting? 

 

You may wish to rescind your nack. 


 

 

-- 
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>  

 

 

On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:46 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> > wrote: 

Good Afternoon, 

 

It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like features including the ability to hide transactions. 

 

If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain. 

 

A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full transaction is published on the blockchain. If that were to change so that transactions may be obfuscated from scrutiny then any government would have unlimited impetus to ban Bitcoin, and speculation has that is the reason India has been reported to have banned cryptocurrencies already. 

 

I am in support of the expanded use case of Bitcoin without harming the established robust fairness and equal equity offered. The core functionality of Bitcoin, its values, must remain unaltered. 

 

KING JAMES HRMH 

Great British Empire 

 

Regards, 

The Australian 

LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH) 

of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire 

MR. Damian A. James Williamson 

Wills 

 

et al. 

 

  

Willtech 

www.willtech.com.au <http://www.willtech.com.au>  

www.go-overt.com <http://www.go-overt.com>  

and other projects 

  

earn.com/willtech <http://earn.com/willtech>  

linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson <http://linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson>  

 

 

m. 0487135719 

f. +61261470192 

 

 

This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered. 

_______________________________________________ 
bitcoin-dev mailing list 
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>  
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev 

 


  _____  


bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> 
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

<ip.bitcointalk.org.png>

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> 
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 39743 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-03  3:06             ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH

  2021-03-03 16:30                 ` micaroni
  2021-03-03 14:49               ` Erik Aronesty
  
From: eric @ 2021-03-03 11:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 'LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH',
	'Bitcoin Protocol Discussion', 'Daniel Edgecumbe'

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 15071 bytes --]

> consensus requires the ledger to be honest does not prove that it is honest.

 

Actually, that’s exactly what it does. A logical/mathematical requirement (necessity) is also called a proof.

 

e

 

From: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists•linuxfoundation.org> On Behalf Of LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 7:06 PM
To: M.K. Safi via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>; Daniel Edgecumbe <email@esotericnonsense•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

 

"Today I spent approximately $5 at a chip shop in North London in cash. Besides the fact that I have voluntarily chosen to share this information, it is absolutely no concern of yourself or any other party that this transaction has occured."

 

Good Afternoon,

 

Requiring little argument I concur, privacy allows that you do not have snoops and researchers following you around looking in your purse as you transact. For the general public, how much you carry in your purse and where you get it from is none of their business. However, your employer is required to report to the government a record of pay, or at least maintain that record, and the store where you made a purchase similarly to keep records so that taxes can be paid. From their perspective, you do not need to know how much they keep in their drawer. Bitcoin directly allows your purse to be private and for the transaction ledger to take the scrutiny anyone should be able to apply to prove the ledger is honest. Maintaining an argument that consensus requires the ledger to be honest does not prove that it is honest.

 

KING JAMES HRMH

Great British Empire

 

Regards,

The Australian

LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)

of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire

MR. Damian A. James Williamson

Wills

 

et al.

 

 

Willtech

www.willtech.com.au <http://www.willtech.com.au> 

www.go-overt.com <http://www.go-overt.com> 

and other projects

 

earn.com/willtech

linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson

 

 

m. 0487135719

f. +61261470192

 

 

This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.

  _____  

From: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists•linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Daniel Edgecumbe via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> >
Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 12:16 PM
To: M.K. Safi via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> >
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK 

 

Any "transparency" in the blockchain, beyond that required for a participant to determine valid ownership, can only reasonably be thought of as a bug.

Today I spent approximately $5 at a chip shop in North London in cash. Besides the fact that I have voluntarily chosen to share this information, it is absolutely no concern of yourself or any other party that this transaction has occured.

Bitcoin is digital cash.

Daniel Edgecumbe | esotericnonsense
email@esotericnonsense•com <mailto:email@esotericnonsense•com>  | https://esotericnonsense.com

On Mon, Mar 1, 2021, at 22:37, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency” 
> (increases privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously 
> an argument against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)? 
> 
> And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person 
> should have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are 
> sufficient privacy?
> 
> Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the 
> value proposition of Bitcoin?
> 
> e
> 
> > On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> > wrote:
> > 
> > ﻿ 
> > Good Afternoon,
> > 
> > I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my affiliation through the link in my email signature block.
> > 
> > My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values and the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are published in an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of information by any obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a privacy suitable for cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially without disturbing the existing consensus.
> > 
> > The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As you may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around looking in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to see where and how much you fill it up, and where you spend. Nonetheless, for an honest person, their wallet is available for government audit as are their financial affairs. This is consistent with the existing operation of consensus.
> > 
> > My full email signature block is a disclosure where I have some affiliation with the referenced website being that it carries at least some information that I have provided or that in some way I am associated perhaps only making use of their services. For example, I hardly make a profit from LinkedIn just my information is there. Also, I have made previous public disclosure of the affiliation. Bitcoin Mixer 2.0 is a partner mixer run by Jambler.io wherein I receive a service referral fee and am not in receipt of any part of the process transaction. The operation block diagram provided by Jambler.io is provided here and attached.
> > <ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
> > 
> > [ip.bitcointalk.org.png]-Operation of Jambler.io partner mixer
> > https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png <https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png&t=622&c=gTi7r1cfh-yynw> &t=622&c=gTi7r1cfh-yynw
> > from this thread  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5267588
> > 
> > 
> > The installation script provided by Jambler.io that is the basis of my referral website is also publicly published,
> > https://github.com/jambler-io/bitcoin-mixer
> > 
> > The disclosure for the partner program is available from Jambler.io however and is made prominently on my referral website. While it may seem lucrative at first I insist all partner profits are reportable on your personal income.
> > https://jambler.io/become-partner.php
> > 
> > I am certainly better than confident that you appreciate the difference between an open and transparent blockchain and the ability of the user to not reveal details of the content of their wallet publicly.
> > 
> > If further clarification is required may I suggest you pay a token and mix some Bitcoin wherein our discussion may then have some point of reference.
> > 
> > KING JAMES HRMH
> > Great British Empire
> > 
> > Regards,
> > The Australian
> > LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> > of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> > MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> > Wills
> > 
> > et al.
> > 
> >  
> > Willtech
> > www.willtech.com.au <http://www.willtech.com.au> 
> > www.go-overt.com <http://www.go-overt.com> 
> > and other projects
> >  
> > earn.com/willtech
> > linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
> > 
> > 
> > m. 0487135719
> > f. +61261470192
> > 
> > 
> > This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
> > *From:* Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail•com <mailto:arielluaces@gmail•com> >
> > *Sent:* Monday, 1 March 2021 12:07 AM
> > *To:* LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au <mailto:willtech@live•com.au> >; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> >
> > *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK 
> >  
> > Hello LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
> > 
> > I find a striking dichotomy between your concern of increased privacy in bitcoin and your link to a bitcoin mixer in your signature www.go-overt.com <http://www.go-overt.com> 
> > 
> > At first your concerns seemed genuine but after seeing your promotion of a bitcoin mixer I'm thinking your concerns may be more profit motivated? I can't tell since you failed to disclose your relationship with the mixer.
> > 
> > Could you please clarify your association with the bitcoin mixer and moving forward could you please always do proper disclosure any time you're publically talking about bitcoin transaction privacy. It's only fair to do so as to not mislead people in an attempt to manipulate at worst and just a courteous practice at best.
> > 
> > Cheers
> > Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
> > On Feb 28, 2021, at 4:36 AM, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> > wrote: 
> >> Good Evening, 
> >> 
> >> Thank-you for your advice   @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>  on the basis you advise, "Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features", I am prepred to withdraw my NACK notably that the existing feeatures of Bitcoin MUST be maintained, and whereby the UTXO of a transaction is identifiable, the PayTo Address, and the amount all without any obfuscation. 
> >> 
> >> Lightning does not really provide obfuscation, it provides a result of a subset of transactions although the operation of the channel is observable to the parties. 
> >> 
> >> The reports I were reading concerning the supposed operation of Taproot published in a public media channel may have been speculation or misinformation nonetheless it is prudent to conditionally reply as you see that I have. It is important not to allow things to slip through the cracks. As you may believe may astute reviewers could make a full disclosure to this list it is not to be expected. 
> >> 
> >> KING JAMES HRMH 
> >> Great British Empire 
> >> 
> >> Regards, 
> >> The Australian 
> >> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH) 
> >> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire 
> >> MR. Damian A. James Williamson 
> >> Wills 
> >> 
> >> et al. 
> >> 
> >>   
> >> Willtech 
> >> www.willtech.com.au <http://www.willtech.com.au>  
> >> www.go-overt.com <http://www.go-overt.com>  
> >> and other projects 
> >>   
> >> earn.com/willtech 
> >> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> m. 0487135719 
> >> f. +61261470192 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered. 
> >> *From:* Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu <mailto:jlrubin@mit•edu> >
> >> *Sent:* Sunday, 28 February 2021 3:14 AM
> >> *To:* LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au <mailto:willtech@live•com.au> >; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> >
> >> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK 
> >>   
> >> I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core, taproot is a way to make transactions with embedded smart contracts less expensive, done so in a manner that may marginally improve privacy dependent on user behavior (but not in the monero-like way you mention). For example, it makes it possible for lightning channels to look structurally similar to single key wallets, but it does nothing inherently to obfuscate the transaction graph as in monero. 
> >> 
> >> Such "monero-like" transaction graph obfuscation may already exist in Bitcoin via other techniques (coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning, etc) with or without Taproot, so the point is further moot. 
> >> 
> >> Do you have a source on your reporting? 
> >> 
> >> You may wish to rescind your nack. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>  <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:46 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> > wrote: 
> >>> Good Afternoon, 
> >>> 
> >>> It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like features including the ability to hide transactions. 
> >>> 
> >>> If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain. 
> >>> 
> >>> A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full transaction is published on the blockchain. If that were to change so that transactions may be obfuscated from scrutiny then any government would have unlimited impetus to ban Bitcoin, and speculation has that is the reason India has been reported to have banned cryptocurrencies already. 
> >>> 
> >>> I am in support of the expanded use case of Bitcoin without harming the established robust fairness and equal equity offered. The core functionality of Bitcoin, its values, must remain unaltered. 
> >>> 
> >>> KING JAMES HRMH 
> >>> Great British Empire 
> >>> 
> >>> Regards, 
> >>> The Australian 
> >>> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH) 
> >>> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire 
> >>> MR. Damian A. James Williamson 
> >>> Wills 
> >>> 
> >>> et al. 
> >>> 
> >>>   
> >>> Willtech 
> >>> www.willtech.com.au <http://www.willtech.com.au>  
> >>> www.go-overt.com <http://www.go-overt.com>  
> >>> and other projects 
> >>>   
> >>> earn.com/willtech 
> >>> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> m. 0487135719 
> >>> f. +61261470192 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered. 
> >>> _______________________________________________ 
> >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list 
> >>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>  
> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev 
> >>  
> >> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> >> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> 
> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> > <ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> 
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> 
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> 
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 24319 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-03  2:54           ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
  2021-03-03 11:55             ` eric

  2021-03-04  5:05               ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
  
From: Thomas Hartman @ 2021-03-03 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 14189 bytes --]

“all transactions should be open to the scrutiny of an honest government”

I agree with this. However, scrutiny does not imply dragnet surveillance.

Bitcoin returns us, or at least aspires to return, to the days of a gold standard.[0] You will be familiar with this, from your time in Her Majesty’s empire.

In these days, scrutiny implied detectives asking questions. Perhaps they would ask questions of multiple parties and see if certain numbers matched. There was no dragnet surveillance, and this as god intended.

We return to these days soon.

I agree with your point about consensus as well. You are free to run a node supporting a dragnet surveillance fork, and sell your coins that support gold-like privacy to accumulate more dragnet surveillance coins. I wish you success with that. 

[0]: https://taaalk.co/t/bitcoin-maxima-other-crypto-things


> On Mar 2, 2021, at 9:54 PM, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> Good Afternoon,
> 
> All people are entitled to privacy in their purse, and all transactions should be open to the scrutiny of an honest government. You can debate whether any government is honest. Mixing does not remove the record from the public ledger, where it is possible to see that any Bitcoin has transferred from an UTXO to some Pay-To address even with some amount of transaction in between them. The value proposition is the samehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jOJk30eQs <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jOJk30eQs> - because people will trust the system; people trust the existing consensus.
> 
> Let us dispense with the screen and deal with the issue only. If it is not necessary to maintain consensus then what is consensus?
> 
> The intrinsic value of Bitcoin is because of the existing consensus. Even if any proposal gains consensus there is no objective way to show it improves the intrinsic value without trialing and the possibility of failure and so protecting the existing consensus should be the highest value. This understanding is the reason BCH exists in addition to BTC Bitcoin.
> 
> KING JAMES HRMH
> Great British Empire
> 
> Regards,
> The Australian
> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> Wills
> 
> et al.
> 
>  
> Willtech
> www.willtech.com.au <x-msg://6/www.willtech.com.au>
> www.go-overt.com <x-msg://6/www.go-overt.com>
> and other projects
>  
> earn.com/willtech <http://earn.com/willtech>
> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson <http://linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson>
> 
> 
> m. 0487135719
> f. +61261470192
> 
> 
> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
> From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil•org>
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 9:37 AM
> To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> Cc: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail•com>
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>  
> To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency” (increases privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously an argument against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)? 
> 
> And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person should have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are sufficient privacy?
> 
> Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the value proposition of Bitcoin?
> 
> e
> 
>> On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> 
>> ﻿
>> Good Afternoon,
>> 
>> I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my affiliation through the link in my email signature block.
>> 
>> My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values and the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are published in an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of information by any obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a privacy suitable for cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially without disturbing the existing consensus.
>> 
>> The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As you may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around looking in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to see where and how much you fill it up, and where you spend. Nonetheless, for an honest person, their wallet is available for government audit as are their financial affairs. This is consistent with the existing operation of consensus.
>> 
>> My full email signature block is a disclosure where I have some affiliation with the referenced website being that it carries at least some information that I have provided or that in some way I am associated perhaps only making use of their services. For example, I hardly make a profit from LinkedIn just my information is there. Also, I have made previous public disclosure of the affiliation. Bitcoin Mixer 2.0 is a partner mixer run by Jambler.io wherein I receive a service referral fee and am not in receipt of any part of the process transaction. The operation block diagram provided by Jambler.io is provided here and attached.
>> <ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
>> 
>> [ip.bitcointalk.org.png]-Operation of Jambler.io partner mixer
>> https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png&t=622&c=gTi7r1cfh-yynw <https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png&t=622&c=gTi7r1cfh-yynw>
>> from this thread  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5267588 <https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5267588>
>> 
>> 
>> The installation script provided by Jambler.io that is the basis of my referral website is also publicly published,
>> https://github.com/jambler-io/bitcoin-mixer <https://github.com/jambler-io/bitcoin-mixer>
>> 
>> The disclosure for the partner program is available from Jambler.io however and is made prominently on my referral website. While it may seem lucrative at first I insist all partner profits are reportable on your personal income.
>> https://jambler.io/become-partner.php <https://jambler.io/become-partner.php>
>> 
>> I am certainly better than confident that you appreciate the difference between an open and transparent blockchain and the ability of the user to not reveal details of the content of their wallet publicly.
>> 
>> If further clarification is required may I suggest you pay a token and mix some Bitcoin wherein our discussion may then have some point of reference.
>> 
>> KING JAMES HRMH
>> Great British Empire
>> 
>> Regards,
>> The Australian
>> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
>> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
>> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
>> Wills
>> 
>> et al.
>> 
>>  
>> Willtech
>> www.willtech.com.au
>> www.go-overt.com
>> and other projects
>>  
>> earn.com/willtech
>> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>> 
>> 
>> m. 0487135719
>> f. +61261470192
>> 
>> 
>> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
>> From: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail•com>
>> Sent: Monday, 1 March 2021 12:07 AM
>> To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>>  
>> Hello LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
>> 
>> I find a striking dichotomy between your concern of increased privacy in bitcoin and your link to a bitcoin mixer in your signature www.go-overt.com <http://www.go-overt.com/>
>> 
>> At first your concerns seemed genuine but after seeing your promotion of a bitcoin mixer I'm thinking your concerns may be more profit motivated? I can't tell since you failed to disclose your relationship with the mixer.
>> 
>> Could you please clarify your association with the bitcoin mixer and moving forward could you please always do proper disclosure any time you're publically talking about bitcoin transaction privacy. It's only fair to do so as to not mislead people in an attempt to manipulate at worst and just a courteous practice at best.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
>> On Feb 28, 2021, at 4:36 AM, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>> Good Evening,
>> 
>> Thank-you for your advice  @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>  on the basis you advise, "Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features", I am prepred to withdraw my NACK notably that the existing feeatures of Bitcoin MUST be maintained, and whereby the UTXO of a transaction is identifiable, the PayTo Address, and the amount all without any obfuscation.
>> 
>> Lightning does not really provide obfuscation, it provides a result of a subset of transactions although the operation of the channel is observable to the parties.
>> 
>> The reports I were reading concerning the supposed operation of Taproot published in a public media channel may have been speculation or misinformation nonetheless it is prudent to conditionally reply as you see that I have. It is important not to allow things to slip through the cracks. As you may believe may astute reviewers could make a full disclosure to this list it is not to be expected.
>> 
>> KING JAMES HRMH 
>> Great British Empire 
>> 
>> Regards, 
>> The Australian 
>> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH) 
>> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire 
>> MR. Damian A. James Williamson 
>> Wills 
>> 
>> et al. 
>> 
>>   
>> Willtech 
>> www.willtech.com.au <applewebdata://11E32DCD-CD1E-4591-8DD3-704BCD700ABC>
>> www.go-overt.com <applewebdata://11E32DCD-CD1E-4591-8DD3-704BCD700ABC>
>> and other projects 
>>   
>> earn.com/willtech 
>> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson 
>> 
>> 
>> m. 0487135719 
>> f. +61261470192 
>> 
>> 
>> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
>> From: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>
>> Sent: Sunday, 28 February 2021 3:14 AM
>> To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>>   
>> I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core, taproot is a way to make transactions with embedded smart contracts less expensive, done so in a manner that may marginally improve privacy dependent on user behavior (but not in the monero-like way you mention). For example, it makes it possible for lightning channels to look structurally similar to single key wallets, but it does nothing inherently to obfuscate the transaction graph as in monero. 
>> 
>> Such "monero-like" transaction graph obfuscation may already exist in Bitcoin via other techniques (coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning, etc) with or without Taproot, so the point is further moot. 
>> 
>> Do you have a source on your reporting? 
>> 
>> You may wish to rescind your nack. 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin> <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
>> 
>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:46 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: 
>> Good Afternoon, 
>> 
>> It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like features including the ability to hide transactions.
>> 
>> If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain. 
>> 
>> A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full transaction is published on the blockchain. If that were to change so that transactions may be obfuscated from scrutiny then any government would have unlimited impetus to ban Bitcoin, and speculation has that is the reason India has been reported to have banned cryptocurrencies already.
>> 
>> I am in support of the expanded use case of Bitcoin without harming the established robust fairness and equal equity offered. The core functionality of Bitcoin, its values, must remain unaltered. 
>> 
>> KING JAMES HRMH
>> Great British Empire 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> The Australian 
>> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH) 
>> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire 
>> MR. Damian A. James Williamson 
>> Wills 
>> 
>> et al. 
>> 
>>   
>> Willtech
>> www.willtech.com.au <http://www.willtech.com.au/>
>> www.go-overt.com <http://www.go-overt.com/>
>> and other projects 
>>   
>> earn.com/willtech <http://earn.com/willtech>
>> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson <http://linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson>
>> 
>> 
>> m. 0487135719 
>> f. +61261470192 
>> 
>> 
>> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
>> _______________________________________________ 
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list 
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> 
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev <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 <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
>> <ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 52695 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-03  3:06             ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
  2021-03-03 11:58               ` eric

  2021-03-04  5:06                 ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
  
From: Erik Aronesty @ 2021-03-03 14:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

taproot does not enable anything that cannot already be done today.

it only enables larger and more complex scripts to be done more
efficiently - using less ledger space.

so any objections you can have should be leveled at bitcoin, not at taproot.

On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 6:39 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> "Today I spent approximately $5 at a chip shop in North London in cash. Besides the fact that I have voluntarily chosen to share this information, it is absolutely no concern of yourself or any other party that this transaction has occured."
>
> Good Afternoon,
>
> Requiring little argument I concur, privacy allows that you do not have snoops and researchers following you around looking in your purse as you transact. For the general public, how much you carry in your purse and where you get it from is none of their business. However, your employer is required to report to the government a record of pay, or at least maintain that record, and the store where you made a purchase similarly to keep records so that taxes can be paid. From their perspective, you do not need to know how much they keep in their drawer. Bitcoin directly allows your purse to be private and for the transaction ledger to take the scrutiny anyone should be able to apply to prove the ledger is honest. Maintaining an argument that consensus requires the ledger to be honest does not prove that it is honest.
>
> KING JAMES HRMH
> Great British Empire
>
> Regards,
> The Australian
> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> Wills
>
> et al.
>
>
> Willtech
> www.willtech.com.au
> www.go-overt.com
> and other projects
>
> earn.com/willtech
> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>
>
> m. 0487135719
> f. +61261470192
>
>
> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
> ________________________________
> From: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists•linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Daniel Edgecumbe via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 12:16 PM
> To: M.K. Safi via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>
> Any "transparency" in the blockchain, beyond that required for a participant to determine valid ownership, can only reasonably be thought of as a bug.
>
> Today I spent approximately $5 at a chip shop in North London in cash. Besides the fact that I have voluntarily chosen to share this information, it is absolutely no concern of yourself or any other party that this transaction has occured.
>
> Bitcoin is digital cash.
>
> Daniel Edgecumbe | esotericnonsense
> email@esotericnonsense•com | https://esotericnonsense.com
>
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021, at 22:37, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency”
> > (increases privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously
> > an argument against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)?
> >
> > And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person
> > should have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are
> > sufficient privacy?
> >
> > Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the
> > value proposition of Bitcoin?
> >
> > e
> >
> > > On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > ﻿
> > > Good Afternoon,
> > >
> > > I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my affiliation through the link in my email signature block.
> > >
> > > My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values and the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are published in an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of information by any obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a privacy suitable for cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially without disturbing the existing consensus.
> > >
> > > The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As you may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around looking in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to see where and how much you fill it up, and where you spend. Nonetheless, for an honest person, their wallet is available for government audit as are their financial affairs. This is consistent with the existing operation of consensus.
> > >
> > > My full email signature block is a disclosure where I have some affiliation with the referenced website being that it carries at least some information that I have provided or that in some way I am associated perhaps only making use of their services. For example, I hardly make a profit from LinkedIn just my information is there. Also, I have made previous public disclosure of the affiliation. Bitcoin Mixer 2.0 is a partner mixer run by Jambler.io wherein I receive a service referral fee and am not in receipt of any part of the process transaction. The operation block diagram provided by Jambler.io is provided here and attached.
> > > <ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
> > >
> > > [ip.bitcointalk.org.png]-Operation of Jambler.io partner mixer
> > > https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png&t=622&c=gTi7r1cfh-yynw
> > > from this thread  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5267588
> > >
> > >
> > > The installation script provided by Jambler.io that is the basis of my referral website is also publicly published,
> > > https://github.com/jambler-io/bitcoin-mixer
> > >
> > > The disclosure for the partner program is available from Jambler.io however and is made prominently on my referral website. While it may seem lucrative at first I insist all partner profits are reportable on your personal income.
> > > https://jambler.io/become-partner.php
> > >
> > > I am certainly better than confident that you appreciate the difference between an open and transparent blockchain and the ability of the user to not reveal details of the content of their wallet publicly.
> > >
> > > If further clarification is required may I suggest you pay a token and mix some Bitcoin wherein our discussion may then have some point of reference.
> > >
> > > KING JAMES HRMH
> > > Great British Empire
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > The Australian
> > > LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> > > of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> > > MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> > > Wills
> > >
> > > et al.
> > >
> > >
> > > Willtech
> > > www.willtech.com.au
> > > www.go-overt.com
> > > and other projects
> > >
> > > earn.com/willtech
> > > linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
> > >
> > >
> > > m. 0487135719
> > > f. +61261470192
> > >
> > >
> > > This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
> > > *From:* Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail•com>
> > > *Sent:* Monday, 1 March 2021 12:07 AM
> > > *To:* LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> > > *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
> > >
> > > Hello LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
> > >
> > > I find a striking dichotomy between your concern of increased privacy in bitcoin and your link to a bitcoin mixer in your signature www.go-overt.com
> > >
> > > At first your concerns seemed genuine but after seeing your promotion of a bitcoin mixer I'm thinking your concerns may be more profit motivated? I can't tell since you failed to disclose your relationship with the mixer.
> > >
> > > Could you please clarify your association with the bitcoin mixer and moving forward could you please always do proper disclosure any time you're publically talking about bitcoin transaction privacy. It's only fair to do so as to not mislead people in an attempt to manipulate at worst and just a courteous practice at best.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
> > > On Feb 28, 2021, at 4:36 AM, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >> Good Evening,
> > >>
> > >> Thank-you for your advice   @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>  on the basis you advise, "Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features", I am prepred to withdraw my NACK notably that the existing feeatures of Bitcoin MUST be maintained, and whereby the UTXO of a transaction is identifiable, the PayTo Address, and the amount all without any obfuscation.
> > >>
> > >> Lightning does not really provide obfuscation, it provides a result of a subset of transactions although the operation of the channel is observable to the parties.
> > >>
> > >> The reports I were reading concerning the supposed operation of Taproot published in a public media channel may have been speculation or misinformation nonetheless it is prudent to conditionally reply as you see that I have. It is important not to allow things to slip through the cracks. As you may believe may astute reviewers could make a full disclosure to this list it is not to be expected.
> > >>
> > >> KING JAMES HRMH
> > >> Great British Empire
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> The Australian
> > >> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> > >> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> > >> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> > >> Wills
> > >>
> > >> et al.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Willtech
> > >> www.willtech.com.au
> > >> www.go-overt.com
> > >> and other projects
> > >>
> > >> earn.com/willtech
> > >> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> m. 0487135719
> > >> f. +61261470192
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
> > >> *From:* Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>
> > >> *Sent:* Sunday, 28 February 2021 3:14 AM
> > >> *To:* LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> > >> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
> > >>
> > >> I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core, taproot is a way to make transactions with embedded smart contracts less expensive, done so in a manner that may marginally improve privacy dependent on user behavior (but not in the monero-like way you mention). For example, it makes it possible for lightning channels to look structurally similar to single key wallets, but it does nothing inherently to obfuscate the transaction graph as in monero.
> > >>
> > >> Such "monero-like" transaction graph obfuscation may already exist in Bitcoin via other techniques (coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning, etc) with or without Taproot, so the point is further moot.
> > >>
> > >> Do you have a source on your reporting?
> > >>
> > >> You may wish to rescind your nack.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>  <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:46 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >>> Good Afternoon,
> > >>>
> > >>> It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like features including the ability to hide transactions.
> > >>>
> > >>> If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain.
> > >>>
> > >>> A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full transaction is published on the blockchain. If that were to change so that transactions may be obfuscated from scrutiny then any government would have unlimited impetus to ban Bitcoin, and speculation has that is the reason India has been reported to have banned cryptocurrencies already.
> > >>>
> > >>> I am in support of the expanded use case of Bitcoin without harming the established robust fairness and equal equity offered. The core functionality of Bitcoin, its values, must remain unaltered.
> > >>>
> > >>> KING JAMES HRMH
> > >>> Great British Empire
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>> The Australian
> > >>> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> > >>> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> > >>> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> > >>> Wills
> > >>>
> > >>> et al.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Willtech
> > >>> www.willtech.com.au
> > >>> www.go-overt.com
> > >>> and other projects
> > >>>
> > >>> earn.com/willtech
> > >>> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> m. 0487135719
> > >>> f. +61261470192
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> 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
> > > <ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-03 11:58               ` eric

  
From: micaroni @ 2021-03-03 16:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: eric, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 15201 bytes --]

Dear LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH), a.k.a. "The Australian",

This discussion list is serious stuff, please stop making noise.
Fungibility is a desirable property, anyway.

Thank you!

On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 12:04 PM Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> > consensus requires the ledger to be honest does not prove that it is
> honest.
>
>
>
> Actually, that’s exactly what it does. A logical/mathematical requirement
> (necessity) is also called a proof.
>
>
>
> e
>
>
>
> *From:* bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists•linuxfoundation.org> *On
> Behalf Of *LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 2, 2021 7:06 PM
> *To:* M.K. Safi via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>;
> Daniel Edgecumbe <email@esotericnonsense•com>
> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>
>
>
> "Today I spent approximately $5 at a chip shop in North London in cash.
> Besides the fact that I have voluntarily chosen to share this information,
> it is absolutely no concern of yourself or any other party that this
> transaction has occured."
>
>
>
> Good Afternoon,
>
>
>
> Requiring little argument I concur, privacy allows that you do not have
> snoops and researchers following you around looking in your purse as you
> transact. For the general public, how much you carry in your purse and
> where you get it from is none of their business. However, your employer is
> required to report to the government a record of pay, or at least maintain
> that record, and the store where you made a purchase similarly to keep
> records so that taxes can be paid. From their perspective, you do not need
> to know how much they keep in their drawer. Bitcoin directly allows your
> purse to be private and for the transaction ledger to take the scrutiny
> anyone should be able to apply to prove the ledger is honest. Maintaining
> an argument that consensus requires the ledger to be honest does not prove
> that it is honest.
>
>
>
> KING JAMES HRMH
>
> Great British Empire
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> The Australian
>
> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
>
> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
>
> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
>
> Wills
>
>
>
> et al.
>
>
>
>
>
> Willtech
>
> www.willtech.com.au
>
> www.go-overt.com
>
> and other projects
>
>
>
> earn.com/willtech
>
> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>
>
>
>
>
> m. 0487135719
>
> f. +61261470192
>
>
>
>
>
> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
> email if misdelivered.
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists•linuxfoundation.org> on
> behalf of Daniel Edgecumbe via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 2 March 2021 12:16 PM
> *To:* M.K. Safi via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>
>
>
> Any "transparency" in the blockchain, beyond that required for a
> participant to determine valid ownership, can only reasonably be thought of
> as a bug.
>
> Today I spent approximately $5 at a chip shop in North London in cash.
> Besides the fact that I have voluntarily chosen to share this information,
> it is absolutely no concern of yourself or any other party that this
> transaction has occured.
>
> Bitcoin is digital cash.
>
> Daniel Edgecumbe | esotericnonsense
> email@esotericnonsense•com | https://esotericnonsense.com
>
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021, at 22:37, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency”
> > (increases privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously
> > an argument against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)?
> >
> > And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person
> > should have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are
> > sufficient privacy?
> >
> > Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the
> > value proposition of Bitcoin?
> >
> > e
> >
> > > On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
> bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > ﻿
> > > Good Afternoon,
> > >
> > > I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do
> appreciate a courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure
> of my affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my
> affiliation through the link in my email signature block.
> > >
> > > My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values
> and the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are
> published in an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of
> information by any obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a
> privacy suitable for cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially
> without disturbing the existing consensus.
> > >
> > > The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy.
> As you may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you
> around looking in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash,
> and to see where and how much you fill it up, and where you spend.
> Nonetheless, for an honest person, their wallet is available for government
> audit as are their financial affairs. This is consistent with the existing
> operation of consensus.
> > >
> > > My full email signature block is a disclosure where I have some
> affiliation with the referenced website being that it carries at least some
> information that I have provided or that in some way I am associated
> perhaps only making use of their services. For example, I hardly make a
> profit from LinkedIn just my information is there. Also, I have made
> previous public disclosure of the affiliation. Bitcoin Mixer 2.0 is a
> partner mixer run by Jambler.io wherein I receive a service referral fee
> and am not in receipt of any part of the process transaction. The operation
> block diagram provided by Jambler.io is provided here and attached.
> > > <ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
> > >
> > > [ip.bitcointalk.org.png]-Operation of Jambler.io partner mixer
> > >
> https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png&t=622&c=gTi7r1cfh-yynw
> > > from this thread  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5267588
> > >
> > >
> > > The installation script provided by Jambler.io that is the basis of my
> referral website is also publicly published,
> > > https://github.com/jambler-io/bitcoin-mixer
> > >
> > > The disclosure for the partner program is available from Jambler.io
> however and is made prominently on my referral website. While it may seem
> lucrative at first I insist all partner profits are reportable on your
> personal income.
> > > https://jambler.io/become-partner.php
> > >
> > > I am certainly better than confident that you appreciate the
> difference between an open and transparent blockchain and the ability of
> the user to not reveal details of the content of their wallet publicly.
> > >
> > > If further clarification is required may I suggest you pay a token and
> mix some Bitcoin wherein our discussion may then have some point of
> reference.
> > >
> > > KING JAMES HRMH
> > > Great British Empire
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > The Australian
> > > LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> > > of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> > > MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> > > Wills
> > >
> > > et al.
> > >
> > >
> > > Willtech
> > > www.willtech.com.au
> > > www.go-overt.com
> > > and other projects
> > >
> > > earn.com/willtech
> > > linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
> > >
> > >
> > > m. 0487135719
> > > f. +61261470192
> > >
> > >
> > > This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
> email if misdelivered.
> > > *From:* Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail•com>
> > > *Sent:* Monday, 1 March 2021 12:07 AM
> > > *To:* LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin
> Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> > > *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
> > >
> > > Hello LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
> > >
> > > I find a striking dichotomy between your concern of increased privacy
> in bitcoin and your link to a bitcoin mixer in your signature
> www.go-overt.com
> > >
> > > At first your concerns seemed genuine but after seeing your promotion
> of a bitcoin mixer I'm thinking your concerns may be more profit motivated?
> I can't tell since you failed to disclose your relationship with the mixer.
> > >
> > > Could you please clarify your association with the bitcoin mixer and
> moving forward could you please always do proper disclosure any time you're
> publically talking about bitcoin transaction privacy. It's only fair to do
> so as to not mislead people in an attempt to manipulate at worst and just a
> courteous practice at best.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
> > > On Feb 28, 2021, at 4:36 AM, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
> bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >> Good Evening,
> > >>
> > >> Thank-you for your advice   @JeremyRubin <
> https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>  on the basis you advise, "Taproot does
> not enable monero-like privacy features", I am prepred to withdraw my NACK
> notably that the existing feeatures of Bitcoin MUST be maintained, and
> whereby the UTXO of a transaction is identifiable, the PayTo Address, and
> the amount all without any obfuscation.
> > >>
> > >> Lightning does not really provide obfuscation, it provides a result
> of a subset of transactions although the operation of the channel is
> observable to the parties.
> > >>
> > >> The reports I were reading concerning the supposed operation of
> Taproot published in a public media channel may have been speculation or
> misinformation nonetheless it is prudent to conditionally reply as you see
> that I have. It is important not to allow things to slip through the
> cracks. As you may believe may astute reviewers could make a full
> disclosure to this list it is not to be expected.
> > >>
> > >> KING JAMES HRMH
> > >> Great British Empire
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> The Australian
> > >> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> > >> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> > >> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> > >> Wills
> > >>
> > >> et al.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Willtech
> > >> www.willtech.com.au
> > >> www.go-overt.com
> > >> and other projects
> > >>
> > >> earn.com/willtech
> > >> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> m. 0487135719
> > >> f. +61261470192
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard
> this email if misdelivered.
> > >> *From:* Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>
> > >> *Sent:* Sunday, 28 February 2021 3:14 AM
> > >> *To:* LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin
> Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> > >> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
> > >>
> > >> I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy
> features any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core,
> taproot is a way to make transactions with embedded smart contracts less
> expensive, done so in a manner that may marginally improve privacy
> dependent on user behavior (but not in the monero-like way you mention).
> For example, it makes it possible for lightning channels to look
> structurally similar to single key wallets, but it does nothing inherently
> to obfuscate the transaction graph as in monero.
> > >>
> > >> Such "monero-like" transaction graph obfuscation may already exist in
> Bitcoin via other techniques (coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning, etc)
> with or without Taproot, so the point is further moot.
> > >>
> > >> Do you have a source on your reporting?
> > >>
> > >> You may wish to rescind your nack.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>  <
> https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:46 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
> bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >>> Good Afternoon,
> > >>>
> > >>> It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like
> features including the ability to hide transactions.
> > >>>
> > >>> If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain.
> > >>>
> > >>> A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full
> transaction is published on the blockchain. If that were to change so that
> transactions may be obfuscated from scrutiny then any government would have
> unlimited impetus to ban Bitcoin, and speculation has that is the reason
> India has been reported to have banned cryptocurrencies already.
> > >>>
> > >>> I am in support of the expanded use case of Bitcoin without harming
> the established robust fairness and equal equity offered. The core
> functionality of Bitcoin, its values, must remain unaltered.
> > >>>
> > >>> KING JAMES HRMH
> > >>> Great British Empire
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>> The Australian
> > >>> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> > >>> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> > >>> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> > >>> Wills
> > >>>
> > >>> et al.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Willtech
> > >>> www.willtech.com.au
> > >>> www.go-overt.com
> > >>> and other projects
> > >>>
> > >>> earn.com/willtech
> > >>> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> m. 0487135719
> > >>> f. +61261470192
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard
> this email if misdelivered.
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> 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
> > > <ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 26349 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-03 11:55             ` eric

  
From: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH @ 2021-03-04  4:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: eric, 'Bitcoin Protocol Discussion'

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 16515 bytes --]

Good Afternoon,

I will reply this to the list. Knit picking is not constructive. The basic principle of Bitcoin it all transactions are published to the public ledger, the blockchain. What is valuable is the system that consensus enshrines as we have it, not what it may become tomorrow. If ther eis not consensus then there is no Bitcoin, there is a scattering of alt-coins one of which may retain the Bitcoin name and BTC lookup but without consensus it is not what is valued by the current consensus. Consensus is exactly why Bitcoin is pushing AU$70K again last night because we agree it has value, and BCH is less than AU$700 - that is why it is important to defend consensus, those who disagree are free to do what they want, mostly, elsewhere. We have agreed Bitcoin has certain properties including being immutable, transparent, publicly published. Consensus provides we make software to operate in accordance with consensus. If we do not value Bitcoin to defend consensus, instead preferring to have the product exhibit our own mistrust or flaws, then go play with BCH and make it like DOGE, they will klike you at DOGE.

Eric, you are intelligent, obviously, but you mistake from you other email the tenet of honset for the actual case of honesty. The ledger is not ascertained to be honest until it can be proven when it is checked, the very reason for publishing to the public blockchain without obfuscation, and one of the actual reasons Bitcoin has inherent value. The value is agreed in an exchange, yet without the properties of the consensus that value is lost.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au<mail://local/Sent/www.willtech.com.au>
www.go-overt.com<mail://local/Sent/www.go-overt.com>
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
________________________________
From: eric@voskuil•org <eric@voskuil•org>
Sent: Wednesday, 3 March 2021 10:55 PM
To: 'LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH' <willtech@live•com.au>; 'Bitcoin Protocol Discussion' <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: 'Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces' <arielluaces@gmail•com>
Subject: RE: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK


> and all transactions should be open to the scrutiny of an honest government.



From what do you derive the moral judgement “should” in this context?



> The value proposition is … because people will trust the system?



So, it’s valuable because it’s trusted? Trusted to do what exactly? What that government money doesn’t already do, specifically.



> If it is not necessary to maintain consensus then what is consensus?



Nothing is “necessary”. Consensus is an agreement among people. It’s voluntary. Any person can choose to leave, create or join another consensus, or stay where they are.



> BCH exists in addition to BTC Bitcoin.



Exactly, people are free to do what they want. Nobody “should” do anything except that which they want to do. This and this alone is the “highest value” if one accepts the moral principle of non-aggression. You do not appear to, and I’m afraid that may be well outside the consensus view among core bitcoin developers (the people you are talking to).



e



From: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 6:55 PM
To: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil•org>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK



Good Afternoon,



All people are entitled to privacy in their purse, and all transactions should be open to the scrutiny of an honest government. You can debate whether any government is honest. Mixing does not remove the record from the public ledger, where it is possible to see that any Bitcoin has transferred from an UTXO to some Pay-To address even with some amount of transaction in between them. The value proposition is the same https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jOJk30eQs - because people will trust the system; people trust the existing consensus.



Let us dispense with the screen and deal with the issue only. If it is not necessary to maintain consensus then what is consensus?



The intrinsic value of Bitcoin is because of the existing consensus. Even if any proposal gains consensus there is no objective way to show it improves the intrinsic value without trialing and the possibility of failure and so protecting the existing consensus should be the highest value. This understanding is the reason BCH exists in addition to BTC Bitcoin.



KING JAMES HRMH

Great British Empire



Regards,

The Australian

LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)

of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire

MR. Damian A. James Williamson

Wills



et al.





Willtech

www.willtech.com.au

www.go-overt.com

and other projects



earn.com/willtech

linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson





m. 0487135719

f. +61261470192





This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.

________________________________

From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org<mailto:eric@voskuil•org>>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 9:37 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live.com.au<mailto:willtech@live•com.au>>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>>
Cc: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail.com<mailto:arielluaces@gmail•com>>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK



To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency” (increases privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously an argument against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)?



And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person should have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are sufficient privacy?



Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the value proposition of Bitcoin?



e



On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

﻿

Good Afternoon,



I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my affiliation through the link in my email signature block.



My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values and the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are published in an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of information by any obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a privacy suitable for cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially without disturbing the existing consensus.



The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As you may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around looking in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to see where and how much you fill it up, and where you spend. Nonetheless, for an honest person, their wallet is available for government audit as are their financial affairs. This is consistent with the existing operation of consensus.



My full email signature block is a disclosure where I have some affiliation with the referenced website being that it carries at least some information that I have provided or that in some way I am associated perhaps only making use of their services. For example, I hardly make a profit from LinkedIn just my information is there. Also, I have made previous public disclosure of the affiliation. Bitcoin Mixer 2.0 is a partner mixer run by Jambler.io wherein I receive a service referral fee and am not in receipt of any part of the process transaction. The operation block diagram provided by Jambler.io is provided here and attached.

<ip.bitcointalk.org.png>



[ip.bitcointalk.org.png]-Operation of Jambler.io partner mixer

https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png&t=622&c=gTi7r1cfh-yynw

from this thread  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5267588





The installation script provided by Jambler.io that is the basis of my referral website is also publicly published,

https://github.com/jambler-io/bitcoin-mixer



The disclosure for the partner program is available from Jambler.io however and is made prominently on my referral website. While it may seem lucrative at first I insist all partner profits are reportable on your personal income.

https://jambler.io/become-partner.php



I am certainly better than confident that you appreciate the difference between an open and transparent blockchain and the ability of the user to not reveal details of the content of their wallet publicly.



If further clarification is required may I suggest you pay a token and mix some Bitcoin wherein our discussion may then have some point of reference.



KING JAMES HRMH

Great British Empire



Regards,

The Australian

LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)

of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire

MR. Damian A. James Williamson

Wills



et al.





Willtech

www.willtech.com.au<http://www.willtech.com.au>

www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>

and other projects



earn.com/willtech

linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson





m. 0487135719

f. +61261470192





This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.

________________________________

From: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail.com<mailto:arielluaces@gmail•com>>
Sent: Monday, 1 March 2021 12:07 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live.com.au<mailto:willtech@live•com.au>>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK



Hello LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH

I find a striking dichotomy between your concern of increased privacy in bitcoin and your link to a bitcoin mixer in your signature www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>

At first your concerns seemed genuine but after seeing your promotion of a bitcoin mixer I'm thinking your concerns may be more profit motivated? I can't tell since you failed to disclose your relationship with the mixer.

Could you please clarify your association with the bitcoin mixer and moving forward could you please always do proper disclosure any time you're publically talking about bitcoin transaction privacy. It's only fair to do so as to not mislead people in an attempt to manipulate at worst and just a courteous practice at best.

Cheers

Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces

On Feb 28, 2021, at 4:36 AM, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

Good Evening,



Thank-you for your advice   @JeremyRubin<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>  on the basis you advise, "Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features", I am prepred to withdraw my NACK notably that the existing feeatures of Bitcoin MUST be maintained, and whereby the UTXO of a transaction is identifiable, the PayTo Address, and the amount all without any obfuscation.



Lightning does not really provide obfuscation, it provides a result of a subset of transactions although the operation of the channel is observable to the parties.



The reports I were reading concerning the supposed operation of Taproot published in a public media channel may have been speculation or misinformation nonetheless it is prudent to conditionally reply as you see that I have. It is important not to allow things to slip through the cracks. As you may believe may astute reviewers could make a full disclosure to this list it is not to be expected.



KING JAMES HRMH

Great British Empire



Regards,

The Australian

LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)

of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire

MR. Damian A. James Williamson

Wills



et al.





Willtech

www.willtech.com.au

www.go-overt.com

and other projects



earn.com/willtech

linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson





m. 0487135719

f. +61261470192





This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.

________________________________

From: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu<mailto:jlrubin@mit•edu>>
Sent: Sunday, 28 February 2021 3:14 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live.com.au<mailto:willtech@live•com.au>>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK



I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core, taproot is a way to make transactions with embedded smart contracts less expensive, done so in a manner that may marginally improve privacy dependent on user behavior (but not in the monero-like way you mention). For example, it makes it possible for lightning channels to look structurally similar to single key wallets, but it does nothing inherently to obfuscate the transaction graph as in monero.



Such "monero-like" transaction graph obfuscation may already exist in Bitcoin via other techniques (coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning, etc) with or without Taproot, so the point is further moot.



Do you have a source on your reporting?



You may wish to rescind your nack.





--
@JeremyRubin<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>





On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:46 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

Good Afternoon,



It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like features including the ability to hide transactions.



If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain.



A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full transaction is published on the blockchain. If that were to change so that transactions may be obfuscated from scrutiny then any government would have unlimited impetus to ban Bitcoin, and speculation has that is the reason India has been reported to have banned cryptocurrencies already.



I am in support of the expanded use case of Bitcoin without harming the established robust fairness and equal equity offered. The core functionality of Bitcoin, its values, must remain unaltered.



KING JAMES HRMH

Great British Empire



Regards,

The Australian

LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)

of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire

MR. Damian A. James Williamson

Wills



et al.





Willtech

www.willtech.com.au<http://www.willtech.com.au>

www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>

and other projects



earn.com/willtech<http://earn.com/willtech>

linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson<http://linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson>





m. 0487135719

f. +61261470192





This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev



________________________________

bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

<ip.bitcointalk.org.png>

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 65877 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-03 14:32             ` Thomas Hartman

  
From: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH @ 2021-03-04  5:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Thomas Hartman, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 15108 bytes --]

Good Afternoon,

Gold is not all off the record if you suppose, it is all the King's property if His Excellency likes. If you suppose for underground gold perhaps fork Bitcoin and make Encryptitcoin and notice governments are hostile to hidden money. Bitcoin also has value because it is transparent and therefore fraud-proof if we must only accept honest blocks.

If you want dragnet surveillance, I have already lodged my taxes up to date.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
________________________________
From: Thomas Hartman <thomashartman1@gmail•com>
Sent: Thursday, 4 March 2021 1:32 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

“all transactions should be open to the scrutiny of an honest government”

I agree with this. However, scrutiny does not imply dragnet surveillance.

Bitcoin returns us, or at least aspires to return, to the days of a gold standard.[0] You will be familiar with this, from your time in Her Majesty’s empire.

In these days, scrutiny implied detectives asking questions. Perhaps they would ask questions of multiple parties and see if certain numbers matched. There was no dragnet surveillance, and this as god intended.

We return to these days soon.

I agree with your point about consensus as well. You are free to run a node supporting a dragnet surveillance fork, and sell your coins that support gold-like privacy to accumulate more dragnet surveillance coins. I wish you success with that.

[0]: https://taaalk.co/t/bitcoin-maxima-other-crypto-things


On Mar 2, 2021, at 9:54 PM, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

Good Afternoon,

All people are entitled to privacy in their purse, and all transactions should be open to the scrutiny of an honest government. You can debate whether any government is honest. Mixing does not remove the record from the public ledger, where it is possible to see that any Bitcoin has transferred from an UTXO to some Pay-To address even with some amount of transaction in between them. The value proposition is the samehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jOJk30eQs - because people will trust the system; people trust the existing consensus.

Let us dispense with the screen and deal with the issue only. If it is not necessary to maintain consensus then what is consensus?

The intrinsic value of Bitcoin is because of the existing consensus. Even if any proposal gains consensus there is no objective way to show it improves the intrinsic value without trialing and the possibility of failure and so protecting the existing consensus should be the highest value. This understanding is the reason BCH exists in addition to BTC Bitcoin.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech<http://earn.com/willtech>
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson<http://linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson>


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
________________________________
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org<mailto:eric@voskuil•org>>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 9:37 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live.com.au<mailto:willtech@live•com.au>>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>>
Cc: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail.com<mailto:arielluaces@gmail•com>>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency” (increases privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously an argument against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)?

And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person should have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are sufficient privacy?

Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the value proposition of Bitcoin?

e

On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

﻿
Good Afternoon,

I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my affiliation with Jambler.io<http://Jambler.io> it seems sufficient to disclose my affiliation through the link in my email signature block.

My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values and the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are published in an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of information by any obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a privacy suitable for cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially without disturbing the existing consensus.

The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As you may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around looking in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to see where and how much you fill it up, and where you spend. Nonetheless, for an honest person, their wallet is available for government audit as are their financial affairs. This is consistent with the existing operation of consensus.

My full email signature block is a disclosure where I have some affiliation with the referenced website being that it carries at least some information that I have provided or that in some way I am associated perhaps only making use of their services. For example, I hardly make a profit from LinkedIn just my information is there. Also, I have made previous public disclosure of the affiliation. Bitcoin Mixer 2.0 is a partner mixer run by Jambler.io<http://Jambler.io> wherein I receive a service referral fee and am not in receipt of any part of the process transaction. The operation block diagram provided by Jambler.io<http://Jambler.io> is provided here and attached.
<ip.bitcointalk.org.png>

[ip.bitcointalk.org.png]-Operation of Jambler.io<http://Jambler.io> partner mixer
https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png&t=622&c=gTi7r1cfh-yynw
from this thread  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5267588


The installation script provided by Jambler.io<http://Jambler.io> that is the basis of my referral website is also publicly published,
https://github.com/jambler-io/bitcoin-mixer

The disclosure for the partner program is available from Jambler.io<http://Jambler.io> however and is made prominently on my referral website. While it may seem lucrative at first I insist all partner profits are reportable on your personal income.
https://jambler.io/become-partner.php

I am certainly better than confident that you appreciate the difference between an open and transparent blockchain and the ability of the user to not reveal details of the content of their wallet publicly.

If further clarification is required may I suggest you pay a token and mix some Bitcoin wherein our discussion may then have some point of reference.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au<http://www.willtech.com.au>
www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>
and other projects

earn.com/willtech<http://earn.com/willtech>
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson<http://linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson>


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
________________________________
From: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail.com<mailto:arielluaces@gmail•com>>
Sent: Monday, 1 March 2021 12:07 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live.com.au<mailto:willtech@live•com.au>>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

Hello LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH

I find a striking dichotomy between your concern of increased privacy in bitcoin and your link to a bitcoin mixer in your signature www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com/>

At first your concerns seemed genuine but after seeing your promotion of a bitcoin mixer I'm thinking your concerns may be more profit motivated? I can't tell since you failed to disclose your relationship with the mixer.

Could you please clarify your association with the bitcoin mixer and moving forward could you please always do proper disclosure any time you're publically talking about bitcoin transaction privacy. It's only fair to do so as to not mislead people in an attempt to manipulate at worst and just a courteous practice at best.

Cheers
Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
On Feb 28, 2021, at 4:36 AM, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
Good Evening,

Thank-you for your advice  @JeremyRubin<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>  on the basis you advise, "Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features", I am prepred to withdraw my NACK notably that the existing feeatures of Bitcoin MUST be maintained, and whereby the UTXO of a transaction is identifiable, the PayTo Address, and the amount all without any obfuscation.

Lightning does not really provide obfuscation, it provides a result of a subset of transactions although the operation of the channel is observable to the parties.

The reports I were reading concerning the supposed operation of Taproot published in a public media channel may have been speculation or misinformation nonetheless it is prudent to conditionally reply as you see that I have. It is important not to allow things to slip through the cracks. As you may believe may astute reviewers could make a full disclosure to this list it is not to be expected.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech<http://earn.com/willtech>
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson<http://linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson>


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
________________________________
From: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu<mailto:jlrubin@mit•edu>>
Sent: Sunday, 28 February 2021 3:14 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live.com.au<mailto:willtech@live•com.au>>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core, taproot is a way to make transactions with embedded smart contracts less expensive, done so in a manner that may marginally improve privacy dependent on user behavior (but not in the monero-like way you mention). For example, it makes it possible for lightning channels to look structurally similar to single key wallets, but it does nothing inherently to obfuscate the transaction graph as in monero.

Such "monero-like" transaction graph obfuscation may already exist in Bitcoin via other techniques (coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning, etc) with or without Taproot, so the point is further moot.

Do you have a source on your reporting?

You may wish to rescind your nack.


--
@JeremyRubin<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin><https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>


On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:46 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
Good Afternoon,

It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like features including the ability to hide transactions.

If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain.

A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full transaction is published on the blockchain. If that were to change so that transactions may be obfuscated from scrutiny then any government would have unlimited impetus to ban Bitcoin, and speculation has that is the reason India has been reported to have banned cryptocurrencies already.

I am in support of the expanded use case of Bitcoin without harming the established robust fairness and equal equity offered. The core functionality of Bitcoin, its values, must remain unaltered.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au<http://www.willtech.com.au/>
www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com/>
and other projects

earn.com/willtech<http://earn.com/willtech>
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson<http://linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson>


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


________________________________

bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

<ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 52072 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-03 14:49               ` Erik Aronesty

  2021-03-05 14:04                   ` Ryan Grant
  
From: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH @ 2021-03-04  5:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Erik Aronesty, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 15730 bytes --]

Good Afternoon,

So this I have been advised as you say.

My concern was that the more complex scripts allow obfuscation of the Pay To address thereby removing the probity that Bitcoin can only be honest since the public ledger can be subject to limitless scrutiny. I did see another party mention this publicly on a social media channel and the back is supposed to be conditional both in the application and in lifting.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
________________________________
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32•com>
Sent: Thursday, 4 March 2021 1:49 AM
To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Daniel Edgecumbe <email@esotericnonsense•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

taproot does not enable anything that cannot already be done today.

it only enables larger and more complex scripts to be done more
efficiently - using less ledger space.

so any objections you can have should be leveled at bitcoin, not at taproot.

On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 6:39 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> "Today I spent approximately $5 at a chip shop in North London in cash. Besides the fact that I have voluntarily chosen to share this information, it is absolutely no concern of yourself or any other party that this transaction has occured."
>
> Good Afternoon,
>
> Requiring little argument I concur, privacy allows that you do not have snoops and researchers following you around looking in your purse as you transact. For the general public, how much you carry in your purse and where you get it from is none of their business. However, your employer is required to report to the government a record of pay, or at least maintain that record, and the store where you made a purchase similarly to keep records so that taxes can be paid. From their perspective, you do not need to know how much they keep in their drawer. Bitcoin directly allows your purse to be private and for the transaction ledger to take the scrutiny anyone should be able to apply to prove the ledger is honest. Maintaining an argument that consensus requires the ledger to be honest does not prove that it is honest.
>
> KING JAMES HRMH
> Great British Empire
>
> Regards,
> The Australian
> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> Wills
>
> et al.
>
>
> Willtech
> www.willtech.com.au<http://www.willtech.com.au>
> www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>
> and other projects
>
> earn.com/willtech
> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>
>
> m. 0487135719
> f. +61261470192
>
>
> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
> ________________________________
> From: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists•linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Daniel Edgecumbe via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 12:16 PM
> To: M.K. Safi via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>
> Any "transparency" in the blockchain, beyond that required for a participant to determine valid ownership, can only reasonably be thought of as a bug.
>
> Today I spent approximately $5 at a chip shop in North London in cash. Besides the fact that I have voluntarily chosen to share this information, it is absolutely no concern of yourself or any other party that this transaction has occured.
>
> Bitcoin is digital cash.
>
> Daniel Edgecumbe | esotericnonsense
> email@esotericnonsense•com | https://esotericnonsense.com
>
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021, at 22:37, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency”
> > (increases privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously
> > an argument against any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)?
> >
> > And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person
> > should have privacy, and not against the state, and/or that mixers are
> > sufficient privacy?
> >
> > Personally, I’m not moved by such an argument. What do you think is the
> > value proposition of Bitcoin?
> >
> > e
> >
> > > On Mar 1, 2021, at 14:21, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > ﻿
> > > Good Afternoon,
> > >
> > > I am going to take tough terms with much of your reply and do appreciate a courteous practice. Having previously made public disclosure of my affiliation with Jambler.io it seems sufficient to disclose my affiliation through the link in my email signature block.
> > >
> > > My concern is not increased privacy it is maintaining consensus values and the transparency of the blockchain wherein all transactions are published in an immutable record and that forbids the redaction of information by any obfuscation. A separate concern is the availability of a privacy suitable for cash should a Bitcoin user desire and especially without disturbing the existing consensus.
> > >
> > > The use of a Bitcoin Mixer is to enable standard equivalent privacy. As you may experience yourself, you do not allow people to follow you around looking in your purse, suppose you are dealing entirely with cash, and to see where and how much you fill it up, and where you spend. Nonetheless, for an honest person, their wallet is available for government audit as are their financial affairs. This is consistent with the existing operation of consensus.
> > >
> > > My full email signature block is a disclosure where I have some affiliation with the referenced website being that it carries at least some information that I have provided or that in some way I am associated perhaps only making use of their services. For example, I hardly make a profit from LinkedIn just my information is there. Also, I have made previous public disclosure of the affiliation. Bitcoin Mixer 2.0 is a partner mixer run by Jambler.io wherein I receive a service referral fee and am not in receipt of any part of the process transaction. The operation block diagram provided by Jambler.io is provided here and attached.
> > > <ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
> > >
> > > [ip.bitcointalk.org.png]-Operation of Jambler.io partner mixer
> > > https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjambler.io%2Fimages%2Fscheme-1.png&t=622&c=gTi7r1cfh-yynw
> > > from this thread  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5267588
> > >
> > >
> > > The installation script provided by Jambler.io that is the basis of my referral website is also publicly published,
> > > https://github.com/jambler-io/bitcoin-mixer
> > >
> > > The disclosure for the partner program is available from Jambler.io however and is made prominently on my referral website. While it may seem lucrative at first I insist all partner profits are reportable on your personal income.
> > > https://jambler.io/become-partner.php
> > >
> > > I am certainly better than confident that you appreciate the difference between an open and transparent blockchain and the ability of the user to not reveal details of the content of their wallet publicly.
> > >
> > > If further clarification is required may I suggest you pay a token and mix some Bitcoin wherein our discussion may then have some point of reference.
> > >
> > > KING JAMES HRMH
> > > Great British Empire
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > The Australian
> > > LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> > > of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> > > MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> > > Wills
> > >
> > > et al.
> > >
> > >
> > > Willtech
> > > www.willtech.com.au<http://www.willtech.com.au>
> > > www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>
> > > and other projects
> > >
> > > earn.com/willtech
> > > linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
> > >
> > >
> > > m. 0487135719
> > > f. +61261470192
> > >
> > >
> > > This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
> > > *From:* Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail•com>
> > > *Sent:* Monday, 1 March 2021 12:07 AM
> > > *To:* LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> > > *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
> > >
> > > Hello LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
> > >
> > > I find a striking dichotomy between your concern of increased privacy in bitcoin and your link to a bitcoin mixer in your signature www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>
> > >
> > > At first your concerns seemed genuine but after seeing your promotion of a bitcoin mixer I'm thinking your concerns may be more profit motivated? I can't tell since you failed to disclose your relationship with the mixer.
> > >
> > > Could you please clarify your association with the bitcoin mixer and moving forward could you please always do proper disclosure any time you're publically talking about bitcoin transaction privacy. It's only fair to do so as to not mislead people in an attempt to manipulate at worst and just a courteous practice at best.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
> > > On Feb 28, 2021, at 4:36 AM, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >> Good Evening,
> > >>
> > >> Thank-you for your advice   @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>  on the basis you advise, "Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features", I am prepred to withdraw my NACK notably that the existing feeatures of Bitcoin MUST be maintained, and whereby the UTXO of a transaction is identifiable, the PayTo Address, and the amount all without any obfuscation.
> > >>
> > >> Lightning does not really provide obfuscation, it provides a result of a subset of transactions although the operation of the channel is observable to the parties.
> > >>
> > >> The reports I were reading concerning the supposed operation of Taproot published in a public media channel may have been speculation or misinformation nonetheless it is prudent to conditionally reply as you see that I have. It is important not to allow things to slip through the cracks. As you may believe may astute reviewers could make a full disclosure to this list it is not to be expected.
> > >>
> > >> KING JAMES HRMH
> > >> Great British Empire
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> The Australian
> > >> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> > >> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> > >> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> > >> Wills
> > >>
> > >> et al.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Willtech
> > >> www.willtech.com.au<http://www.willtech.com.au>
> > >> www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>
> > >> and other projects
> > >>
> > >> earn.com/willtech
> > >> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> m. 0487135719
> > >> f. +61261470192
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
> > >> *From:* Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>
> > >> *Sent:* Sunday, 28 February 2021 3:14 AM
> > >> *To:* LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> > >> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
> > >>
> > >> I have good news for you: Taproot does not enable monero-like privacy features any moreso than already exist in Bitcoin today. At its core, taproot is a way to make transactions with embedded smart contracts less expensive, done so in a manner that may marginally improve privacy dependent on user behavior (but not in the monero-like way you mention). For example, it makes it possible for lightning channels to look structurally similar to single key wallets, but it does nothing inherently to obfuscate the transaction graph as in monero.
> > >>
> > >> Such "monero-like" transaction graph obfuscation may already exist in Bitcoin via other techniques (coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning, etc) with or without Taproot, so the point is further moot.
> > >>
> > >> Do you have a source on your reporting?
> > >>
> > >> You may wish to rescind your nack.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>  <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:46 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >>> Good Afternoon,
> > >>>
> > >>> It has been reported that Taproot will enable some Monero like features including the ability to hide transactions.
> > >>>
> > >>> If that is the case I offer a full NACK and let me explain.
> > >>>
> > >>> A part of the benefit of using Bitcoin is its honesty. The full transaction is published on the blockchain. If that were to change so that transactions may be obfuscated from scrutiny then any government would have unlimited impetus to ban Bitcoin, and speculation has that is the reason India has been reported to have banned cryptocurrencies already.
> > >>>
> > >>> I am in support of the expanded use case of Bitcoin without harming the established robust fairness and equal equity offered. The core functionality of Bitcoin, its values, must remain unaltered.
> > >>>
> > >>> KING JAMES HRMH
> > >>> Great British Empire
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>> The Australian
> > >>> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> > >>> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> > >>> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> > >>> Wills
> > >>>
> > >>> et al.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Willtech
> > >>> www.willtech.com.au<http://www.willtech.com.au>
> > >>> www.go-overt.com<http://www.go-overt.com>
> > >>> and other projects
> > >>>
> > >>> earn.com/willtech
> > >>> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> m. 0487135719
> > >>> f. +61261470192
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> 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
> > > <ip.bitcointalk.org.png>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 22618 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]


  
From: Eric Voskuil @ 2021-03-04  7:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH;  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2614 bytes --]

Your Excellency,

You don’t seem to understand how Bitcoin currently works. A signature is a mathematical /probabilistical proof that the person who signed (the output) is the same person who created the script (the input) that was paid to (i.e. not fraud). You cannot see that he is that person, you can only do the math - giving yourself a reasonable assurance that it is not a fraud.

Taproot is not a proposed change to this design, so I’m not sure to what exactly you are objecting. The math continues to be the sole assurance and visibility that the money was created and transferred in accordance with the agreed rules (consensus). There is no other way for anyone to “look at” potential fraud on the chain.

If you are aware of any flaw in the existing or proposed mathematics that would enable fraudulent creation or transfer of bitcoin, please spell it out for us.

e

> On Mar 3, 2021, at 21:10, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au> wrote:
> 
> Good Afternoon,
> 
> I will reply privately here, what do you say I am not in support of fungibility? This fungibility is because of consensus including transparency. Otherwise, if it is just a fraud no-one can look at it.
> 
> KING JAMES HRMH
> 
> Regards,
> The Australian
> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> Wills
> 
> et al.
> 
>  
> Willtech
> www.willtech.com.au
> www.go-overt.com
> and other projects
>  
> earn.com/willtech
> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
> 
> 
> m. 0487135719
> f. +61261470192
> 
> 
> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
> From: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists•linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Felipe Micaroni Lalli via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> Sent: Thursday, 4 March 2021 3:30 AM
> To: eric@voskuil•org <eric@voskuil•org>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>  
> Dear LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH), a.k.a. "The Australian",
> 
> This discussion list is serious stuff, please stop making noise. Fungibility is a desirable property, anyway.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 12:04 PM Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > consensus requires the ledger to be honest does not prove that it is honest.
> 
> Actually, that’s exactly what it does. A logical/mathematical requirement (necessity) is also called a proof.
> 
> e

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6011 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-04  5:06                 ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH

  2021-03-10  6:34                     ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
  
From: Ryan Grant @ 2021-03-05 14:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:48 PM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> My concern was that the more complex scripts allow obfuscation of the Pay To address

This is no different from options available in P2SH, or from the
obfuscation achieved by generating a new address for a payment.


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-05 14:04                   ` Ryan Grant

  2021-03-11  0:47                       ` Keagan McClelland
  
From: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH @ 2021-03-10  6:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion, Ryan Grant

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1718 bytes --]

Good Afternoon,

You cannot liken the ability to scrutinise the public ledger to be the same as hiding information, it is like showing your palm while you are pointing at the back of your hand. The advice that I have is P2SH is scrutable once the UTXO is spent. Also, there is no public ledger obfuscation in creating new addresses, there is a plausible reduction in transaction linkage.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
________________________________
From: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists•linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Saturday, 6 March 2021 1:04 AM
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:48 PM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> My concern was that the more complex scripts allow obfuscation of the Pay To address

This is no different from options available in P2SH, or from the
obfuscation achieved by generating a new address for a payment.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3482 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-10  6:34                     ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH

  2021-03-12 13:04                         ` R E Broadley
  
From: Keagan McClelland @ 2021-03-11  0:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2562 bytes --]

LORD HIS EXCELLENCY,

This isn't different with Taproot either. When you spend a P2SH output you
reveal the script. In Taproot you reveal the portion of the script that is
relevant to allowing you to spend it. There is no value to specifying the
other possible conditions that could have moved the coins because, after
all, you aren't invoking those clauses to move the coins. I am showing you
my fingertip, and pointing to my finger tip, the palm is not relevant.

Keagan

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 2:11 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Good Afternoon,
>
> You cannot liken the ability to scrutinise the public ledger to be the
> same as hiding information, it is like showing your palm while you are
> pointing at the back of your hand. The advice that I have is P2SH is
> scrutable once the UTXO is spent. Also, there is no public ledger
> obfuscation in creating new addresses, there is a plausible reduction in
> transaction linkage.
>
> KING JAMES HRMH
> Great British Empire
>
> Regards,
> The Australian
> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> Wills
>
> et al.
>
>
> Willtech
> www.willtech.com.au
> www.go-overt.com
> and other projects
>
> earn.com/willtech
> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>
>
> m. 0487135719
> f. +61261470192
>
>
> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
> email if misdelivered.
> ------------------------------
> *From:* bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists•linuxfoundation.org> on
> behalf of Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, 6 March 2021 1:04 AM
> *To:* Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:48 PM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
> bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > My concern was that the more complex scripts allow obfuscation of the
> Pay To address
>
> This is no different from options available in P2SH, or from the
> obfuscation achieved by generating a new address for a payment.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5216 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-11  0:47                       ` Keagan McClelland

  2021-03-12 22:30                           ` Eric Voskuil
  
From: R E Broadley @ 2021-03-12 13:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Keagan McClelland, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

Can I just point out (to those addressing James as Lord/Excelency/etc
that he isn't noble nor a Lord, so just wanted to mention this in case
people were giving him more attention than the average person would be
afforded.

My 2p (an equal 2p) on Taproot is ACK, by the way.

On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 at 00:49, Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY,
>
> This isn't different with Taproot either. When you spend a P2SH output you reveal the script. In Taproot you reveal the portion of the script that is relevant to allowing you to spend it. There is no value to specifying the other possible conditions that could have moved the coins because, after all, you aren't invoking those clauses to move the coins. I am showing you my fingertip, and pointing to my finger tip, the palm is not relevant.
>
> Keagan
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 2:11 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Good Afternoon,
>>
>> You cannot liken the ability to scrutinise the public ledger to be the same as hiding information, it is like showing your palm while you are pointing at the back of your hand. The advice that I have is P2SH is scrutable once the UTXO is spent. Also, there is no public ledger obfuscation in creating new addresses, there is a plausible reduction in transaction linkage.
>>
>> KING JAMES HRMH
>> Great British Empire
>>
>> Regards,
>> The Australian
>> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
>> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
>> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
>> Wills
>>
>> et al.
>>
>>
>> Willtech
>> www.willtech.com.au
>> www.go-overt.com
>> and other projects
>>
>> earn.com/willtech
>> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>>
>>
>> m. 0487135719
>> f. +61261470192
>>
>>
>> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
>> ________________________________
>> From: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists•linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, 6 March 2021 1:04 AM
>> To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:48 PM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
>> bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > My concern was that the more complex scripts allow obfuscation of the Pay To address
>>
>> This is no different from options available in P2SH, or from the
>> obfuscation achieved by generating a new address for a payment.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-12 13:04                         ` R E Broadley

  2021-03-14 10:13                             ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
  
From: Eric Voskuil @ 2021-03-12 22:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: R E Broadley, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

I’m pretty sure it’s subtle mockery. Even a legit title doesn’t warrant additional attention.

e

> On Mar 12, 2021, at 14:02, R E Broadley via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> ﻿Can I just point out (to those addressing James as Lord/Excelency/etc
> that he isn't noble nor a Lord, so just wanted to mention this in case
> people were giving him more attention than the average person would be
> afforded.
> 
> My 2p (an equal 2p) on Taproot is ACK, by the way.


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-12 22:30                           ` Eric Voskuil

  2021-03-14 18:41                               ` Aymeric Vitte
  
From: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH @ 2021-03-14 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: R E Broadley, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion, Eric Voskuil

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2645 bytes --]

Good Afternoon,

Since this is on the list I will open without my thank-you. You will
kindly be advised that my title are recorded in both Scotland and with
England, also provided by record in Australia's account with names
recorded. If you wonder than am I Wills it is because a long time
before we ever saw Wills in print with an article provided reference to
any Prince in the past thirty-years there I am Wills already. Title The
Australian was prepared a long time to my requiest to wait until it was
better presented, with at least some acquired experience in business to
understand a market like BHP services. Thereby you accept a separate
title Lord being with feudal and Lord being with the appointments
direct to the service of the monarch's house Earl and similar up to
Duke and King and higher being heard usually the monarch's preference
Your Excellency or Your Highness being His service. I have never been
any Prince. If any Prince titles came the instructions were they were
retained to be considered not accepted not refused.

If you had each fools to inquire.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
email if misdelivered.
________________________________
From: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists•linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Saturday, 13 March 2021 9:30 AM
To: R E Broadley <rebroad+linuxfoundation.org@gmail•com>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

I’m pretty sure it’s subtle mockery. Even a legit title doesn’t warrant additional attention.

e

> On Mar 12, 2021, at 14:02, R E Broadley via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> ﻿Can I just point out (to those addressing James as Lord/Excelency/etc
> that he isn't noble nor a Lord, so just wanted to mention this in case
> people were giving him more attention than the average person would be
> afforded.
>
> My 2p (an equal 2p) on Taproot is ACK, by the way.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4189 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-14 10:13                             ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH

  2021-03-17  4:19                                 ` ZmnSCPxj
  
From: Aymeric Vitte @ 2021-03-14 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion,
	R E Broadley, Eric Voskuil

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3894 bytes --]

It's incredible how this troll keeps trolling and the list (bitcoin-dev
!!) keeping attention


Good troll, really


Le 14/03/2021 à 11:13, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev a
écrit :
> Good Afternoon,
>
> Since this is on the list I will open without my thank-you. You will
> kindly be advised that my title are recorded in both Scotland and with
> England, also provided by record in Australia's account with names
> recorded. If you wonder than am I Wills it is because a long time
> before we ever saw Wills in print with an article provided reference to
> any Prince in the past thirty-years there I am Wills already. Title The
> Australian was prepared a long time to my requiest to wait until it was
> better presented, with at least some acquired experience in business to
> understand a market like BHP services. Thereby you accept a separate
> title Lord being with feudal and Lord being with the appointments
> direct to the service of the monarch's house Earl and similar up to
> Duke and King and higher being heard usually the monarch's preference
> Your Excellency or Your Highness being His service. I have never been
> any Prince. If any Prince titles came the instructions were they were
> retained to be considered not accepted not refused.
>
> If you had each fools to inquire.
>
> KING JAMES HRMH
> Great British Empire
>
> Regards,
> The Australian
> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> Wills
>
> et al.
>
>  
> Willtech
> www.willtech.com.au
> www.go-overt.com
> and other projects
>  
> earn.com/willtech
> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>
>
> m. 0487135719
> f. +61261470192
>
>
> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
> email if misdelivered.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists•linuxfoundation.org> on
> behalf of Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, 13 March 2021 9:30 AM
> *To:* R E Broadley <rebroad+linuxfoundation.org@gmail•com>; Bitcoin
> Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK
>  
> I’m pretty sure it’s subtle mockery. Even a legit title doesn’t
> warrant additional attention.
>
> e
>
> > On Mar 12, 2021, at 14:02, R E Broadley via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > ﻿Can I just point out (to those addressing James as Lord/Excelency/etc
> > that he isn't noble nor a Lord, so just wanted to mention this in case
> > people were giving him more attention than the average person would be
> > afforded.
> >
> > My 2p (an equal 2p) on Taproot is ACK, by the way.
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-- 
Sophia-Antipolis, France
LinkedIn: https://fr.linkedin.com/in/aymeric-vitte-05855b26
Move your coins by yourself (browser version): https://peersm.com/wallet
Bitcoin transactions made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-transactions
Zcash wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets
Bitcoin wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets
Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist
Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass
Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.org
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8679 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-03 11:22             ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH

  2021-03-16 11:39                 ` DA Williamson
  
From: ZmnSCPxj @ 2021-03-16  2:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

Good morning JAMES,

> No-one has yet demonstrated that Conjoin or using Wasabi wallet is secure if it relies on third-parties. Are the transaction not forwarded partially signed as with an SPV wallet? So it is possible the SPV server cannot redirect funds if dishonest? SPV wallets are secure producing fully signed transactions. A ConJoin transaction signs for the UTXO and forwards it to be included signed for in another larger transaction with many inputs and outputs

The above point was not answered, so let me answer this for elucidation of you and any readers.

A CoinJoin transaction is a single transaction with many inputs and many outputs.

Every input must be signed.

When used to obfuscate, each input has different actual entities owning the coin.

In order to prevent fraud, it is necessary that what total amount each entity puts into the transaction, that entity also gets out (in freshly-generated addresses, which I hope you do not object to) as an output.

When providing its signature, each entity verifies that its provided address exists in some output first before signing out its input.

The provided signature requires all the inputs and all the outputs to exist in the transaction.
Because of this, it is not possible to take a "partial" signature for this transaction, then change the transaction to redirect outputs elsewhere --- the signature of previous participants become invalid for the modified transaction..

Thus, the security of the CoinJoin cannot be damaged by a third party.

Third parties involved in popular implementations of CoinJoin (such as the coordinator in Wasabi) are nothing more than clerical actuaries that take signatures of an immutable document, and any attempt by that clerical actuary to change the document also destroys any signatures of that document, making the modified document (the transaction) invalid.

> . Also, none of those you mention is inherently a Privacy Technology. Transparency is one of the key articles of value in Bitcoin because it prevents fraud.

The prevention of fraud simply requires that all addition is validatable.
It does not require that the actual values involved are visible in cleartext.

Various cryptographic techniques already exist which allow the verifiable addition of encrypted values ("homomorphisms").
You can get 1 * G and 2 * G, add the resulting points, and compare it to 3 * G and see that you get the same point, yet if you did not know exactly what G was used, you would not know that you were checking the addition of 1 + 2 = 3.
That is the basis of a large number of privacy coins.

At the same time, if I wanted to *voluntarily* reveal this 1 + 2 = 3, I could reveal the numbers involved and the point G I used, and any validator (including, say, a government taxing authority) can check that the points recorded on the blockchain match with what I claimed.

For the prevention of fraud, we should strive to be as transparent as *little* as possible, while allowing users to *voluntarily* reveal information.


Regards,
ZmnSCPxj


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-16  2:11               ` ZmnSCPxj

  2021-03-17  4:11                   ` ZmnSCPxj
  
From: DA Williamson @ 2021-03-16 11:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: ZmnSCPxj, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH

Good Afternoon,

Verifiable and independantly verifiable are not the same. Independantly
scrutinable means any public can scrutinise blockchain to determine it
is honest. It does not rely on involved parties but insistently on the
data published in the blockchain. The accepted case of P2SH is also a
moot point since we are checking transactions and not where the balance
is but where it has come from. It is not further to P2SH which is not
obfuscation but is indeed publishing to then say that we only need
publicly disclose G3 which is a tangent obfuscation.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES
HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A.
James Williamson
Wills

et al.

 
Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com

and other projects
 
earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m.
0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general
advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
On Tue, 2021-03-16 at 02:11 +0000, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Good morning JAMES,
> 
> > No-one has yet demonstrated that Conjoin or using Wasabi wallet is
> > secure if it relies on third-parties. Are the transaction not
> > forwarded partially signed as with an SPV wallet? So it is possible
> > the SPV server cannot redirect funds if dishonest? SPV wallets are
> > secure producing fully signed transactions. A ConJoin transaction
> > signs for the UTXO and forwards it to be included signed for in
> > another larger transaction with many inputs and outputs
> 
> The above point was not answered, so let me answer this for
> elucidation of you and any readers.
> 
> A CoinJoin transaction is a single transaction with many inputs and
> many outputs.
> 
> Every input must be signed.
> 
> When used to obfuscate, each input has different actual entities
> owning the coin.
> 
> In order to prevent fraud, it is necessary that what total amount
> each entity puts into the transaction, that entity also gets out (in
> freshly-generated addresses, which I hope you do not object to) as an
> output.
> 
> When providing its signature, each entity verifies that its provided
> address exists in some output first before signing out its input.
> 
> The provided signature requires all the inputs and all the outputs to
> exist in the transaction.
> Because of this, it is not possible to take a "partial" signature for
> this transaction, then change the transaction to redirect outputs
> elsewhere --- the signature of previous participants become invalid
> for the modified transaction..
> 
> Thus, the security of the CoinJoin cannot be damaged by a third
> party.
> 
> Third parties involved in popular implementations of CoinJoin (such
> as the coordinator in Wasabi) are nothing more than clerical
> actuaries that take signatures of an immutable document, and any
> attempt by that clerical actuary to change the document also destroys
> any signatures of that document, making the modified document (the
> transaction) invalid.
> 
> > . Also, none of those you mention is inherently a Privacy
> > Technology. Transparency is one of the key articles of value in
> > Bitcoin because it prevents fraud.
> 
> The prevention of fraud simply requires that all addition is
> validatable.
> It does not require that the actual values involved are visible in
> cleartext.
> 
> Various cryptographic techniques already exist which allow the
> verifiable addition of encrypted values ("homomorphisms").
> You can get 1 * G and 2 * G, add the resulting points, and compare it
> to 3 * G and see that you get the same point, yet if you did not know
> exactly what G was used, you would not know that you were checking
> the addition of 1 + 2 = 3.
> That is the basis of a large number of privacy coins.
> 
> At the same time, if I wanted to *voluntarily* reveal this 1 + 2 = 3,
> I could reveal the numbers involved and the point G I used, and any
> validator (including, say, a government taxing authority) can check
> that the points recorded on the blockchain match with what I claimed.
> 
> For the prevention of fraud, we should strive to be as transparent as
> *little* as possible, while allowing users to *voluntarily* reveal
> information.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-16 11:39                 ` DA Williamson

  2021-03-17  8:13                     ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
  
From: ZmnSCPxj @ 2021-03-17  4:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: DA Williamson;  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

Good morning JAMES,

> Good Afternoon,
>
> Verifiable and independantly verifiable are not the same. Independantly
> scrutinable means any public can scrutinise blockchain to determine it
> is honest. It does not rely on involved parties but insistently on the
> data published in the blockchain.

The involved parties ultimately publish the data on the blockchain, and the result is independently validatable.
All that each involved party has to do is validate for itself that it does not lose any funds, and, by the operation of math, the summary result does not result in any loss (or creation) of funds, thus CoinJoin cannot lead to fraud.

I do not see much of a point in your objection here.
For example, in the case of Lightning, the individual payments made by the participants in the channel cannot be verified by anyone else (they can lie about the payments that occurred on their channel).
But both participants in the channel need to agree on a single result, and it is that summary result that is independently verified onchain and published.

Indeed, one major technique for privacy improvement in Bitcoin is the simple technique of creating summaries of multiple actions without revealing details.
Such a general class of techniques works by reducing the data pushed onchain which provides both (a) scale because less data on chain and (b) privacy because less data is analyzable onchain.

Basically ---

1.  The entire point of a public blockchain is to prevent uncontrolled forgery of the coin.
    Only particular rules allow construction of new coins (in Bitcoin, the mining subsidy).
2.  Various techniques can be used to support the above central point.
    * The simplest is to openly publish every amount value in cleartext.
      * However, this is not necessarily the ***only*** acceptable way to achieve the goal!
      * Remember, the point is to prevent uncontrolled forgery.
        The point is **not** mass surveillance.
    * Another method would be to openly publish **summaries** of transactions, such as by Lightning Network summarizing the result of multiple payments.
      * CoinJoin is really just a way to summarize multiple self-payments.
    * Another method would be to use homomorphisms between a cleartext and a ciphertext, and publish only the ciphertext (which can be independently verified as correctly being added together and that inputs equal outputs plus fees).

No privacy technique worth discussing and development in Bitcoin gets around the above point, and thus fraud cannot be achieved with those (at least if we define fraud simply as "those who control the keys control the coins" --- someone stealing a copy of your privkeys is beyond this definition of fraud).
Any privacy improvement Taproot buys (mostly in LN, but also some additional privacy for CoinSwap) will still not allow fraud.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-14 18:41                               ` Aymeric Vitte

  2021-03-17  5:46                                   ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
  
From: ZmnSCPxj @ 2021-03-17  4:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Aymeric Vitte, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion


> It's incredible how this troll keeps trolling and the list (bitcoin-dev !!) keeping attention
>
> Good troll, really

Depending on topic raised, it may be useful to at least answer the troll naively as if it were an honest question, if only so that third parties reading do not get confused and think the troll is bringing up some objection that is actually relevant.

For this particular topic you replied to, it seems to me obviously inane to discuss the "lordship" and "majesty" of the troll.
Even if the claims to such "lordship" are *true*, for most of the world, the relevance of the previous British empire is little more than a reality TV show about the British royal family (oh, some random thing happened to some random descendant of the royal family, how interesting, say did you see that nice new (actually old) technique Jeremy was talking about on the other thread about delegating control of coins to script, it looks like "graftroot without a softfork"?), and any particular claims to nobility or aristocracy are largely moot, thus not worth answering.


Regards,
ZmnSCPxj


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-17  4:19                                 ` ZmnSCPxj

  2021-03-17  7:14                                     ` Eric Voskuil
  
From: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH @ 2021-03-17  5:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Aymeric Vitte, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion, ZmnSCPxj

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2297 bytes --]

Good Afternoon,

If you actually believe the operation of consensus and the discussion relevant to that is a mundane or philosophical dissection of people's ability to grasp a humorous while on-topic but obligatorily unnecessary conversation you may prefer if you enquire how Bitcoin is censorship-resistant.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
________________________________
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com>
Sent: Wednesday, 17 March 2021 3:19 PM
To: Aymeric Vitte <aymeric@peersm•com>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>; R E Broadley <rebroad+linuxfoundation.org@gmail•com>; Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil•org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK


> It's incredible how this troll keeps trolling and the list (bitcoin-dev !!) keeping attention
>
> Good troll, really

Depending on topic raised, it may be useful to at least answer the troll naively as if it were an honest question, if only so that third parties reading do not get confused and think the troll is bringing up some objection that is actually relevant.

For this particular topic you replied to, it seems to me obviously inane to discuss the "lordship" and "majesty" of the troll.
Even if the claims to such "lordship" are *true*, for most of the world, the relevance of the previous British empire is little more than a reality TV show about the British royal family (oh, some random thing happened to some random descendant of the royal family, how interesting, say did you see that nice new (actually old) technique Jeremy was talking about on the other thread about delegating control of coins to script, it looks like "graftroot without a softfork"?), and any particular claims to nobility or aristocracy are largely moot, thus not worth answering.


Regards,
ZmnSCPxj

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3561 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-17  5:46                                   ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH

  
From: Eric Voskuil @ 2021-03-17  7:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH;  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 382 bytes --]


> If you actually believe the operation of consensus and the discussion relevant to that is a mundane or philosophical dissection of people's ability to grasp a humorous while on-topic but obligatorily unnecessary conversation you may prefer if you enquire how Bitcoin is censorship-resistant.

https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Censorship-Resistance-Property

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 703 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-17  4:11                   ` ZmnSCPxj

  2021-03-17  9:32                       ` ZmnSCPxj
  
From: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH @ 2021-03-17  8:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: DA Williamson, ZmnSCPxj;  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4091 bytes --]

Good afternoon,

That is not desirable since yourself and I cannot prove the property of the UTXO when it is further spent unless we can ourselves scrutinize it.

We have had this conversation before where you approach your reply to resolve that I have offered disagreement and I try to explain I am not disagreeing and yet there should be found some common ground. Can this improve?

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects

earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
________________________________
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com>
Sent: Wednesday, 17 March 2021 3:11 PM
To: DA Williamson <damian@willtech•com.au>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>; LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live•com.au>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot NACK

Good morning JAMES,

> Good Afternoon,
>
> Verifiable and independantly verifiable are not the same. Independantly
> scrutinable means any public can scrutinise blockchain to determine it
> is honest. It does not rely on involved parties but insistently on the
> data published in the blockchain.

The involved parties ultimately publish the data on the blockchain, and the result is independently validatable.
All that each involved party has to do is validate for itself that it does not lose any funds, and, by the operation of math, the summary result does not result in any loss (or creation) of funds, thus CoinJoin cannot lead to fraud.

I do not see much of a point in your objection here.
For example, in the case of Lightning, the individual payments made by the participants in the channel cannot be verified by anyone else (they can lie about the payments that occurred on their channel).
But both participants in the channel need to agree on a single result, and it is that summary result that is independently verified onchain and published.

Indeed, one major technique for privacy improvement in Bitcoin is the simple technique of creating summaries of multiple actions without revealing details.
Such a general class of techniques works by reducing the data pushed onchain which provides both (a) scale because less data on chain and (b) privacy because less data is analyzable onchain.

Basically ---

1.  The entire point of a public blockchain is to prevent uncontrolled forgery of the coin.
    Only particular rules allow construction of new coins (in Bitcoin, the mining subsidy).
2.  Various techniques can be used to support the above central point.
    * The simplest is to openly publish every amount value in cleartext.
      * However, this is not necessarily the ***only*** acceptable way to achieve the goal!
      * Remember, the point is to prevent uncontrolled forgery.
        The point is **not** mass surveillance.
    * Another method would be to openly publish **summaries** of transactions, such as by Lightning Network summarizing the result of multiple payments.
      * CoinJoin is really just a way to summarize multiple self-payments.
    * Another method would be to use homomorphisms between a cleartext and a ciphertext, and publish only the ciphertext (which can be independently verified as correctly being added together and that inputs equal outputs plus fees).

No privacy technique worth discussing and development in Bitcoin gets around the above point, and thus fraud cannot be achieved with those (at least if we define fraud simply as "those who control the keys control the coins" --- someone stealing a copy of your privkeys is beyond this definition of fraud).
Any privacy improvement Taproot buys (mostly in LN, but also some additional privacy for CoinSwap) will still not allow fraud.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6405 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-17  8:13                     ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH

  2021-03-18  1:10                         ` DA Williamson
  
From: ZmnSCPxj @ 2021-03-17  9:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH;  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

Good morning,

> Good afternoon,
>
> That is not desirable since yourself and I cannot prove the property of the UTXO when it is further spent unless we can ourselves scrutinize it.

What property *needs* to be proven in the first place?

I suspect you are riding too much on your preferences and losing sight of the end goal I am pointing at here.
If your goal is to promote something you prefer (which you selected for other reasons) then the conclusion will be different.

I already laid out the necessary goal that I consider as necessary:

> The entire point of a public blockchain is to prevent uncontrolled forgery of the coin.

Given the above, it is not *necessary* to prove *any* property of *any* UTXO other than the property *this UTXO does not create more coins than what was designed*.
The exact value of that coin, the public key of that coin, *when* the coin was spent and for *what* purpose are not *necessary*, the only thing necessary to prove is that inputs = outputs + fee.
Indeed, the exact values of "inputs" and "outputs" and "fee" are also not needed to be verifiable, only the simple fact "input = outputs + fee" needs to be verifiable (which is why homomorphic encryptions of input, output, and fee are acceptable solutions to this goal).
It is immaterial if you or I *can* or *cannot* prove any *other* property, if the goal is only to prevent uncontrolled forgery.

If your definition of "fraud" is broader, then please lay it out explicitly.
As well, take note that as I understand it, this is largely the primary problem of cryptocurrencies that existed long before Bitcoin did; it is helpful to remember that Chaumian banks and various forms of e-cash existed before Bitcoin.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-17  9:32                       ` ZmnSCPxj

  
From: DA Williamson @ 2021-03-18  1:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: ZmnSCPxj, LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH;  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

Good Morning,

The Bitcoin you are spending must exist in compliance with consensus
so, if the details are obscured then it is not possible for me to
accept your Bitcoin, to say I refuse. Otherwise, it is not possible for
me to see immutably that they exist all the way to coin genesis, they
could be invented in the obfuscation even in the example the received
Bitcoin are discarded as fees and new Bitcoin are invented. In that
case the transaction is not in balance but, without public scrutiny it
is not possible to see.

It is also necesdsary to see who should be able to spend the UTXO to
prevent fraud, so that scrutability allows consensus driven fungibility
to be proven. If the transaction is not available to scrutiny at least
at the level of P2SH where the spend reveals the pay to script with all
the other conditions of consensus then fungibilty does not exist.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.

 
Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects
 
earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
email if misdelivered.
On Wed, 2021-03-17 at 09:32 +0000, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> What property *needs* to be proven in the first place?

> Given the above, it is not *necessary* to prove *any* property of
*any* UTXO other than the property *this UTXO does not create more
coins than what was designed*.



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]