- Abstract
I see a need for a protocol, based on an up and coming atomic swap protocol that is in it's infancy. That protocol has a severe privacy flaw, in that transactions can be followed through blockchains via the immutable and deterministic nature of cryptographic hash functions. This allows me to present the concept of Aprivacy. A privacy so pure it erases the need for privacy because it erases he who seeks it, for what could have more privacy than that which is presumed and seemingly nonexistent?
- Introduction
As atomic transactions ( the ability to move value between native networks and sources) becomes prevalent, we will face a particular issue. There will still be a link between coin transactions due to the computational work (hashing) done during conversation and transfer. To remedy this, I posit the solution of aprivate transactions, via the concept of atomic privacy, wherein the structure of the atom is mimicked in a multi-layer network, allowing for the dissolution of transaction/action history, via the repeated batched input and output of transactions among several people.
For instance, if Alice wants to send Bob two coins, we can facilitate that transaction, by bundling it with person C and D's transactions, of an asynchronous and/or different magnitude and value, allowing for the identities of the two prior (or more, potentially infinite) parties to be dissolved within another transaction. This would provide aprivacy to any transaction save for the existential last in the network, the date of which is not foreseeable, feasibly predictable, or likely to occur within several generations, and still results in a less than 0.001% failure rate, provided all of the other functions of the protocol do not make even that impossible. In events where only two users exists, or only wish to exchange value with eachother, the LiPro's (Liquidity Providers) could still play their role as expressed at the bottom of the post.
This could also be considered a binary relation, where the first transactor set (pA ---> pB) is the domain and the second transactor set (pC ---> pD), is the range, allowing us to use the aRb relational function to link the values of the transaction amounts via CCT.
It will be necessary to make sure that the input transaction, which will be dissolved, is less than or equal to transaction it is being batched into for output, while maintaining that the output is equal to ( or less than?*) the input, to prevent "Infinitely Greater Attacks", where output is only required to be greater than the input, allowing for malicious actors to manipulate funds to their benefit due to nodes having no consensus rules on how much greater than the initial transaction the output can be.
For example, a one coin transaction between two parties, batched into a four coin transaction between two parties, each coin in the second transaction a quarter value of the first coin in the the initial transaction, would require that the one coin tx be less than or equal to the four coin tx. If we do not specify also that the four coin tx can have no value greater than the one coin tx, malicious actors can take advantage of this undefined parameter, and push through transactions with outputs many times greater than the initial input, either out of thin air or elsewhere in the network, which entirely erodes the value of the protocol and security of the network.
Descending Atomic Network Structure
(What do electron energy states map to 1:1 within this context?)
Electron Cloud: Accounts database, or P(1..n)
Electrons: Accounts with transactions needing to be filled.
Protons: Accounts with the necessary liquidity to fill transations.
Neutrons: Accounts not needing transactions filled, lacking liquidity to fill a whole specific transaction, but may still provide liquidity by joining the nucleus.
Nucleus Program: Multi-coin masternode liquidity pool, desirable for anyone looking to wash large amounts of coin. (Absolutely must incorporate Dashes self funded governance model into this.) [How to extend this beyond MN's?]
Fission: Wash entire account by dispersing the entire balance into the liquidity of the market, for a period of time, to have the same coins returned washed.
[Add MARKET VARIABLE]
Fusion: Wash entire account by dispersing the entire balance into the liquidity of the market, for a period of time, to have the value returned in the form of one coin of your choice, previously owned or not.
Split The Atom: Account deletion function. Will cryptographically hash all account information, transaction, holdings and creation history, into a dead end file, to then be broadcasted to the network as never existed, and subsequently over written in the form of another hash function as never existed.
This will require an empty account, currently uninvolved in any transaction, and unenrolled from the Nucleus program to avoid the permanent erasure of user funds from blockchain history. Could also incorporate a function to allow new users to write their new account space over accounts that wish to split, mimicking a chemical reaction like that which results from addition or subtraction of electrons between certain elements, to help prevent bloated state data.
MV = !null (that would be a nightmare)
$Currency = c$
$Person A (Sender 1) = pA/s1(Cn)$
LiProOne = Lp1
Person B (Payee1) = pB/P1 (Cn)
LiProTwo = Lp2
Transaction1(Tx1)
Tx1 = {Lp1 = (pA + s1) } + {Lp2 (pB + P1)}
Person C (Sender 2) = pC/s2(Cn)
LiProThree = Lp3
Person B (Payee1) = pB/P1 (Cn)
LiProFour = Lp4
Transaction2(Tx2)
Tx2 = {Lp3 = (pC + s3)} + { Lp4 = ( pD + s4) }
Tx1 = Tx2
Or
Lp1(x) + Lp2(x) = s1(x) + p1(x) = Lp3(x) + Lp4 = s2(x) + p2(x)