0

Does it affect bitcoin's privacy when I create an explorer that works differently and tracks inputs based on LIFO (Last In First Out)? Does it affect bitcoin protocol's fungibility?

Context: FIFO is used in Ordinals theory

If yes, can we destroy bitcoin's privacy with some explorers created by government agencies?

Improve this question
12
  • 2
    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?
    – Murch ♦
    Commented Mar 1, 2023 at 18:30
  • 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.
    – user133407
    Commented Mar 1, 2023 at 19:36
  • 1
    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.
    – Vojtěch Strnad
    Commented Mar 1, 2023 at 20:07
  • 1
    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.)
    – Vojtěch Strnad
    Commented Mar 1, 2023 at 21:43
  • 1
    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.
    – Vojtěch Strnad
    Commented Mar 1, 2023 at 22:13

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

I interpret this question to be a roundabout way of asking whether Ordinals may impact privacy on the Bitcoin network.

It is best practice that Bitcoin transactions shuffle the order of inputs and outputs. When order must be preset among multiple collaborators, it is preferred to use a pseudorandom deterministic order that looks random to uninvolved parties.

Since subscribers to Ordinal Theory have additional concerns regarding the order of transaction inputs and outputs, rare Ordinals or Ordinals imbued with Inscriptions present a fingerprint that informs chain surveillants’ attempts at identifying change outputs and clustering of wallet activity.

Additionally, Ordinal Theory reinforces the notion that satoshis can be uniquely traced and UTXOs are non-fungible. It’s reasonable to expect that the resulting behavior will impact the privacy of wallets of Ordinal Theory subscribers and—if Ordinal Theory should gain sufficient support—could transitively harm privacy on the bitcoin network more broadly.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.