Despite the massive success of Bitcoin protocol, money privacy remains the unrealized priority of A Cypherpunk's Manifesto by Eric Hughes (https://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/docs/cypherpunk-manifesto.txt) published March 9, 1993; at least as per Alex Gladstein's viewpoint expressed in The Quest For Digital Cash published on October 13, 2021 (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/bitcoin-adam-back-and-digital-cash).
Gladstein cites earlier works from David Chaum in 1992 concerning the digital age expressing that mankind is at a decision point, where “in one direction lies unprecedented scrutiny and control of people’s lives; in the other, secure parity between individuals and organizations. The shape of society in the next century,” he wrote, “may depend on which approach predominates.”
This project is to demonstrate, using a couple of builtin features of the new Chialisp programming language, that it's possible to short-range teleport, to "blink", value and thereby enhance money privacy, making it more in line with the stated requirements of the original Cypherpunks and more like David Chaum's vision of secure parity.
Leveraging how if there is unassigned spent coin value in a chia spend bundle in excess of deficit value in one coin in the same bundle then the coin having deficit still successfully spends and maintains it's parent lineage to the next unspent coin on the chia blockchain. You can theoretically assign an unlimited amount of XCH value to the most humble coin lineage because as long as there is excess XCH value somewhere else in the same spend bundle the transaction will go through. The other thing we are leveraging is how in chialisp wallet addresses are just encoded puzzle hashes and puzzle hashes are just compiled programming logic. Therefore when we ask another party to send value to a specific address we theoretically 100% control the programming logic of what happens next when that coin eventually gets spent, the sending party cannot be expected to bear any responsibility.
We enlist a faucet to take advantage of the latter point, to put a new coin on the blockchain Coin A with logic we control and the faucet's lineage, that when spent sends value in excess of it's own value to a newly created anonymous wallet address. Coin A has what I call "deficit value" and would never spend alone in a spend bundle. To spend, the deficit value of Coin A must be the same or less than the value Coin C (which needs privacy) and spends in the same spend bundle with an excess of unassigned value. What I call "excess value" means a coin if there is no deficit value elsewhere in the spend bundle it would still spend, but it's value would become fees for the farmer.
When Coin C(needs privacy coin) spends this way it's lineage ends. In other words, there is no parent_coin_info RPC call available anywhere on the chia blockchain. The value of Coin C (needs privacy) has "blink mojo'd" somewhere, but nobody can determine exactly where. Blinking can be repeated as many times as necessary to accumulate doubt of where the value of Coin C resides at any given time on the blockchain. This technique is verifiably successful as per the transactions demonstrated in the files herein; spendbundle files, audit files etc. I assert there is no proof that the deficit value that Coin A overcame to send value to an anonymous wallet did or did not come from the unassigned value of Coin C(needs privacy), or the unassigned value Coin B (which was spent in nearly the same way and simply present to create further doubt of where the needs privacy value went), thereby privacy has been gained for Coin C, and the Chia Privacy Coin Set which is our ultimate goal. My belief is that the larger this is the more likely average users will want to use it for everyday consumer purposes.
NOTE: blink_mojo technique used in these examples was of almost infinitely small value done on mainnet for exhibition purposes and posterity. It was done completely insecure and is error prone(AKA you will lose your money). It is designed to foster discussion for a long time.
There is an enhanced version of this technique called py-blink_mojo-secure(https://github.com/geraldneale/py-blink_mojo-secure) which uses aggregated signatures to secure and a python3 driver to automate nearly all of it on the testnet10 chia blockchain. Of course, testnet10 has a limited lifespan so I felt it was necessary to do a small demonstration on the immutable Chia mainnet blockchain.
Please attempt to prove my assertion wrong by using the open source software I am offering here and explain what assumptions I have wrong with vigor. We should only really care about on-chain analytical arguments. Mempool db copies are centralized and are as worthless, in my opinion, as any other centralized money auditing system.
“Each coin specifically makes some output coins, but where the amounts of the output coins come from is not very clear. The rule is across a block as a whole the numbers need to add up. The sum of all the coins that are spent must equal the sum value of all the coins that were created, but it doesn’t draw lines between them. It’s just an aggregate value.”
“Construction in Chialisp” - Bram Cohen 20221210 00:16:43 https://youtu.be/nhBzQ-BcFSc?t=1003
“When you take a bunch of transactions that are in mempool and make a block out of them the boundaries between what those transactions were previously are kind of lost as you do it. It doesn’t remember that information. As far as it’s concerned, once it’s in a block there were a bunch of individual coins that were spent and it does not aggregate together those particular coin spends into where they came from.”
“Construction in Chialisp” - Bram Cohen 20221210 00:18:10 https://youtu.be/nhBzQ-BcFSc?t=1089
Anonymous Wallet*: 0x1d4c24bff6bf87b6896f1efd15e9d2fe15e17f07252752c695d3261c1148d940 Known Wallet: 0x58bb585420abf3275685a71e2ea26637890881f6f469b20ab32a73a7db324521 *used nucle.io whom may harvest originating IP address
CoinA(created via faucet.chia.net for anonymity):
"amount": 100,
"parent_coin_info": "0xdd34c450a68dabe8851fca2b81ffdef4120a9465039f9c34e5feb059a97acd31",
"puzzle_hash": "0x55cbce99411743ae478a938e5603f1f937ae0e52d9d73293e6dfe6b22a83a290"
CoinB(created normally):
"amount": 100,
"parent_coin_info": "0x09be1fdbc68ab86fb6c681aa76687da685e0718352ba1edac4c71fbe34a5a639",
"puzzle_hash": "0x8a3bf47feade69aefbad6e8219933c78f57ddb2c3d107de5403a0fc9848d813a"
CoinC(created normally):
"amount": 100,
"parent_coin_info": "0x3e18caf8ff69bd958d5ac71baa5c1ddf003cfaffad6eae247d8930da7a6f8341",
"puzzle_hash": "0x9dcf97a184f32623d11a73124ceb99a5709b083721e878a16d78f596718ba7b2"
CoinD(created normally):
"amount": 100,
"parent_coin_info": "0x885bd91652625f1515ecf0083e3006e61340b45a1dd0884a10f11c85b46dbe14",
"puzzle_hash": "0x9dcf97a184f32623d11a73124ceb99a5709b083721e878a16d78f596718ba7b2"
Gerald Neale 2021-10-16
xch1hv4gj4vvdsyzn9hrhy9tn6hu6jwk82tyrs3t4r33468x642myjws8kh8xl
https://www.chia.net/2021/05/27/Agrgregated-Sigs-Taproot-Graftroot/