Timeline for Does it affect bitcoin's privacy if I create an explorer that works differently?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 3, 2023 at 18:21 | comment | added | Vojtěch Strnad | I'm not sure what exactly you mean by that. In any case, happy you got the answer you needed. | |
| Mar 2, 2023 at 23:04 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Mar 1, 2023 at 22:13 | comment | added | Vojtěch Strnad | I've already voted to close this, I'm not looking for more reasons, just providing the context for others. Regarding the linked Q&A, inconsistent moderation of opinion-based questions is inevitable since not everyone with voting privileges sees every question and the Stack Exchange definition of "opinion-based" isn't very strict. Maybe this is something to bring up on Bitcoin Meta. | |
| Mar 1, 2023 at 21:52 | comment | added | user133407 | @VojtěchStrnad Have you looked at this Q&A? bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/117230/… and I also believe there are several questions here in which developers involved in some projects had questions about it. If you are still looking for reasons to close this let me know. | |
| Mar 1, 2023 at 21:43 | comment | added | Vojtěch Strnad | Of course, but it is solely the responsibility of the post creator to make sure it adheres to the site rules. Closed questions are hopefully meant to be closed temporarily and reopened after the problem has been fixed. Even after the edits it still seems pretty opinion-based to me, especially since there are very differing opinions on this issue and you yourself probably already have an answer of your own. (Specifically, I believe you wouldn't actively participate in the development around ordinals if you thought they were an attack on Bitcoin or hurt its fungibility.) | |
| Mar 1, 2023 at 21:12 | comment | added | user133407 | @VojtěchStrnad there is an option to EDIT the question instead of closing it. Maybe you missed it. | |
| Mar 1, 2023 at 21:10 | history | edited | user133407 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 5 characters in body; edited title
|
| Mar 1, 2023 at 20:28 | answer | added | Murch♦ | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 1, 2023 at 20:25 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 6, 2023 at 3:05 | |||||
| Mar 1, 2023 at 20:07 | comment | added | Vojtěch Strnad | Just my two cents (sats) here: any question that begins with "Is it an attack on Bitcoin if..." should probably be automatically closed as opinion-based. | |
| Mar 1, 2023 at 19:52 | comment | added | user133407 | My question remains the same. If I come up with "xyz" theory tomorrow that tracks inputs and outputs based on LIFO instead of FIFO, would what be considered an attack on bitcoin privacy or fungibility? Or a scheme that does something similar? Its not just about ordinals | |
| Mar 1, 2023 at 19:49 | comment | added | Murch♦ | So, is your question whether ordinal theory is an attack on Bitcoin privacy because it might make people use less private input and output orders? | |
| Mar 1, 2023 at 19:49 | history | edited | user133407 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 44 characters in body
|
| Mar 1, 2023 at 19:48 | comment | added | user133407 |
In a bitcoin tx, it is not necessary that first input was sent to first output. However, Ordinal theory says that first input was transferred to first output. It is a workaround to make swaps and transfers work in UTXO chain. This is not how bitcoin works at protocol level and joinpsbts makes it even harder by improving privacy.
|
|
| Mar 1, 2023 at 19:44 | comment | added | Murch♦ | Uh, okay. If you are asking a question about ordinals, it might be helpful to mention that in your post. Anyway, even when I try to put your question into context of ordinals, mempool.space tracks inputs and outputs by the order they actually appear on the transaction, I don’t see how this has anything to do with whether ordinals are FIFO or LIFO. Could you elaborate how we get from input and output orders to privacy issues? (Beside ordinals reinforcing the notion that sats are non-fungible in the first place?) | |
| Mar 1, 2023 at 19:36 | comment | added | user133407 | Presently there is an explorer which works on ordinal theory and tracks inputs based on FIFO. Example: mempool.space/signet/tx/… First input in this tx is assigned to first output even though it was coinjoin. Assigned in ordinal explorer however, not at protocol level. But in Ordinal explorer first input goes to first output address. | |
| Mar 1, 2023 at 18:30 | comment | added | Murch♦ | I don’t understand what you mean with “tracks inputs based on LIFO”. Are you talking about how the spent transaction outputs are identified in transactions? Otherwise, if they just present data differently, how would that affect the protocol? | |
| Mar 1, 2023 at 17:27 | history | asked | user133407 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |