Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
polymutex pfp
polymutex
@polymutex.eth
There have been efforts to add privacy to Ethereum L1, such as stealth addresses[1] and EIP-7503[2]. [1]: https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2023/01/20/stealth.html [2]: https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7503
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
polymutex pfp
polymutex
@polymutex.eth
However, the state of L1 privacy today is: - No Ethereum wallet supports stealth addresses. - EIP-7503 isn't slated for inclusion. - Tornado Cash is sanctioned by OFAC. - Its developers are in jail. - There is nothing on Vitalik's roadmap[3] around privacy. [3]: https://x.com/VitalikButerin/status/1741190491578810445
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
polymutex pfp
polymutex
@polymutex.eth
L2s can't have real privacy if L1 doesn't have privacy. Since rollups' security properties requires the ability for an L1 user to force inclusion of a transaction in a rollup, then true L2 privacy only exists if there is a way to do force-inclusion without revealing the identity of the L1 or L2 user in the process.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
polymutex pfp
polymutex
@polymutex.eth
It seems clear that this is an under-researched area of Ethereum. Yet it is an area that, if Ethereum is maximally successful but nothing is done on L1 privacy before Ethereum ossifies, Ethereum would have created a surveillance dystopia.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
polymutex pfp
polymutex
@polymutex.eth
Tim Beiko (@tim) has stated as such in a recent AMA, and wishes that folks would spend 20% of the brainpower spent on solving MEV towards solving L1 privacy[4]. [4]: https://warpcast.com/tim/0x01dc4ab8
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
polymutex pfp
polymutex
@polymutex.eth
Can you explain the state of L1 privacy as you see it? How do you think about its prioritization on the Ethereum roadmap? How can I, as a non-cryptography-expert Ethereum user who care about privacy, help make L1 privacy become a serious consideration for the evolution of Ethereum R&D going forward?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
polymutex pfp
polymutex
@polymutex.eth
This post is meant as a question for @justindrake's orb at https://justin.orb.land/ but doesn't fit in 140 characters (the Orb's question length limit), so I posted it here instead.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
polymutex pfp
polymutex
@polymutex.eth
As per the Orb's terms, I understand that this means Justin is technically no longer bound to actually answer this question, unless he wishes to do so anyway. I'm hoping he does :)
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
polymutex pfp
polymutex
@polymutex.eth
The SHA-256 hash of the above question is 5ad309be5a8d2ece94c65fcccdc5238d1913e9da088e9fd082e8c879fd9b60a6, as can be verified with the following command: ``` $ ipfs cat QmSqMAsNdvLMbL9AmAQWSZAchEFrkkr8Ux6NLumcqk2cDn | sha256sum ``` (Yes, I realize the IPFS CID is itself a hash and that this is redundant.)
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
polymutex pfp
polymutex
@polymutex.eth
This question is now onchain as per Ethereum transaction 0xc6771c3bddcdb04efec80ebf39948f33c2ced74bdf04fbe7d59fa567dd8ce7c3. https://etherscan.io/tx/0xc6771c3bddcdb04efec80ebf39948f33c2ced74bdf04fbe7d59fa567dd8ce7c3
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Justin Drake pfp
Justin Drake
@justindrake
Response transaction here https://etherscan.io/tx/0x5f2d5aca61f230c22202279357d18f56142d1438096f25c4ed387061492a6cfd I cheapened out with a 50 Gwei max base fee so apologies if the onchain commitment arrives a bit late :)
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
polymutex pfp
polymutex
@polymutex.eth
Thanks for the response! Totally agree on relative priorities (security > scalability > privacy). Where I think we differ is that I worry more about ossification or capture risk prior to privacy being widespread. Glad to hear it's on the R&D roadmap. Thanks for your work on Ethereum, keep fighting the good fight! šŸ«”
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction