> Bitcoins relative lack of privacy creates a problem with tainted coins
> risking becoming unspendable, or spendable only with some users, or at a
> discount. So while the policy coded says all coins are equally acceptable,
> the information exists so people can unilaterally reject them, dependin
Adam,
Take a look at this privacy enhancing solution based on fair exchange
implemented by bitcoin contracts and cut-and-choose. It would require a
public pool of users willing to exchange in common denominations at
moments in time together to ensure unlinkability. It also leave a trace
of exc
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 01:51:51PM +0200, Adam Back wrote:
> Adam Back in Sep 1999, cypherpunks list:
>>I wouldn't say ecash has to use blinding, but I would argue it would be a
>>misuse of the word "ecash", if something which was revocable were dubbed
>>ecash.
So I still think that is an importan
3 matches
Mail list logo
