Mark Friedenbach [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-08-09 📝 Original message:On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-08-09
📝 Original message:On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Sergio Lerner <sergiolerner at certimix.com>
wrote:
> Hi Tim,
> It's clear from the paper that the second party in the protocol can
> de-anonymize the first party. So it's seems that dishonest shufflers would
> prefer to be in that position in the queue.
>
That's not clear to me. The 2nd party doesn't know how the 3rd, 4th, 5th,
etc. parties shuffled the outputs, since it doesn't have their decryption
keys.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140809/c4a74ebd/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Sergio Lerner <sergiolerner at certimix.com>
wrote:
> Hi Tim,
> It's clear from the paper that the second party in the protocol can
> de-anonymize the first party. So it's seems that dishonest shufflers would
> prefer to be in that position in the queue.
>
That's not clear to me. The 2nd party doesn't know how the 3rd, 4th, 5th,
etc. parties shuffled the outputs, since it doesn't have their decryption
keys.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140809/c4a74ebd/attachment.html>;