Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

wallet: new transaction construction algorithm #348

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 24, 2015

Conversation

moneromooo-monero
Copy link
Collaborator

It should avoid a lot of the issues sending more than half the
wallet's contents due to change.

Actual output selection is still random. Changing this would
improve the matching of transaction amounts to output sizes,
but may have non obvious effects on blockchain analysis.

Mapped to the new transfer_new command in simplewallet, and
transfer uses the existing algorithm.

To use in RPC, add "new_algorithm: true" in the transfer_split
JSON command. It is not used in the transfer command.

@iamsmooth
Copy link
Contributor

Can you describe (maybe pseudocode or English, not sure which is easier) how the new algorithm works and how it differs from the old one?

It should avoid a lot of the issues sending more than half the
wallet's contents due to change.

Actual output selection is still random. Changing this would
improve the matching of transaction amounts to output sizes,
but may have non obvious effects on blockchain analysis.

Mapped to the new transfer_new command in simplewallet, and
transfer uses the existing algorithm.

To use in RPC, add "new_algorithm: true" in the transfer_split
JSON command. It is not used in the transfer command.
@fluffypony fluffypony merged commit 988fe1f into monero-project:master Jul 24, 2015
fluffypony added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 24, 2015
988fe1f wallet: new transaction construction algorithm (moneromooo-monero)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants