DS: try to use only inputs with the same number of rounds starting from lowest number of rounds possible #607
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…om lowest number of rounds possible
eduffield222
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 15, 2015
DS: try to use only inputs with the same number of rounds starting from lowest number of rounds possible
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This should make DS progress a bit more predictable by eliminating cases when inputs with different number of rounds were mixed together and we had to artificially lower number of rounds for each of them to the lowest one to be 100% sure of mixing depth. Should also help to avoid reusing the same coins for mixing too often.
One thing I'm not sure about is will this weaken anonymity or not. To me it seems like it's the same level as we already have now but any inputs are welcome of course.
PS. could be incompatible with #564 and also require to update implementation there but 1) it was reverted anyway 2) this one can be applied to 0.12.0.x while #564 is for 0.12.1.x