Gingeropolous posted this 8 years ago
Best summarized by hyc here:
We discussed this again in today's Dev meeting. I am against using "ring size" because it already has a (different) meaning in the context of RingCT.
I proposed "decoys" on IRC, and I see this has also been suggested here. Some other possibilities:
blinding factor
masking factor
opacity
shells (as in shell game)
originates from reddit thread here
The goal. Mixin implies mixing, which doesn't happen. What else can we call it so people understand the process better?
Of all you listed I liked shells the best, it seems to be most accurate at the moment even over the ones I came up with.
Here are few I thought of right off top of my head:
integer, dependents, multipliers, stealth factor, descriptors, privacy merge, trans number (as in transmission), worm holes, tubes, channels, transits, transients, chameleon, cloak, binder,
Out of all I brainstormed i like "cloak"
Yes, shells also carries a protective connotation, aside from the deception meaning.
So would it be referred to as " shell number" or "number of shells" or " shelling factor"
Something like "number of shells" sounds most natural to me.
hrm. upon further thought, shell seems too deceptive to me.
blend? blend factor?
or we just make up a word.
well after many nonsense word generator disappointments, perhaps just "z factor" . That way, its its own thing. The monero z factor is the number of other outputs included in your ring signature to create an input.
kinda has some connotation to "depth" (the z plane in a 3d plot), but its not explicit.
I can't comment on the technical part, but 'mixin' sounds shady because of Bitcoin's mixing. For the same reason I don't like it being replaced with terms like 'masking', 'blinding', 'cloacking' etc. It should be as (politically) neutral and clear is it can be.
What I am trying to say is that privacy is easily confused by trying to cover up for something (like mixin, masking, cloaking, blinding etc may suggest to some people). We should try to prevent this kind of association.
one possibility is to move from the "privacy" angle and towards the fungibility angle. I.e., if you break it down, the fungibility of monero is dependent on its untraceability and unlinkability. So, for each existing transaction on the blockchain that you include in your ring signature, you are increasing the fungibility of that transaction. If you include 2 others transactions, then the strength of that transactions fungibility can be compromised if those 2 transactions are compromised, etc.
For instance, if you compare a transaction with 100 members in the ring signature to one with 2 members in the ring signature, which one theoretically is more fungible?
Granted, due to points raised elsewhere, using a term like "fungibility level" would just create more confusion.
Something with the word "depth" or "width" might work, because when you add members,
ooooh. How about something with embedding. Because when you add ring members, you are really just embedding your transaction in the blockchain. You are weaving. Enmeshing. Meshing.
Gingeropolous, yes it seems fungibility would bring confusion. I don't know if you have read any threads on bct under bitcoin discussion where fungibility is discussed within the thread. There just seems to be multiple definitions. Google spellcheck doesn't even think it's a word.
You say "the fungibility of monero is dependent on its untraceability and unlinkability". I believe that ring signatures are the untraceable part. So it's only part of Monero's fungability. I believe a while back there were discussions about changing the term mixin in the GUI because it's meaning was not clear. Untraceability was thought to have a negative connotation for some of Monero's use cases and that privacy was a much better term. This was all a while ago and my memory is fuzzy as usual but this discussion must be somewhere and I surprised nobody has brought it up.
> I believe a while back there were discussions about changing the term mixin in the GUI because it's meaning was not clear. Untraceability was thought to have a negative connotation for some of Monero's use cases and that privacy was a much better term.
Yeah, thats probably why we see "privacy level" in mymonero, and I think in the previews of the GUI.
Well I guess I'm of the camp that thinks even "privacy level" may have negative connotation. People will be like "why do I want to increase my privacy level?"
Because yeah... its somewhat about privacy, but its also about the strength of monero as money. Hell, in all actuality, the best bet would probably be to set the mixin at at a default minimum of 10, and bury changing it high somewhere in the settings.
> Well I guess I'm of the camp that thinks even "privacy level" may have negative connotation. People will be like "why do I want to increase my privacy level?"
I agree, it is not as neutral as I would like it to be. But the term must be self explainable to users not understanding how Monero works. I do hope some more suggestions will popup :)
Even when you bury 'privacy level' deep down in the settings, it will still popup everywhere else (fora, websites, etc).
It should be something simple, that average user will understand from the glimpse when he is sending money.
For now in simpleallet we have
transfer [<mixin_count>] <addr_1> <amount_1> [<addr_2> <amount_2> ... <addr_N> <amount_N>] [payment_id] - Transfer <amount_1>,... <amount_N> to <address_1>,... <address_N>, respectively. <mixin_count> is the number of extra inputs to include for untraceability (from 0 to maximum available)
Apart from privacy only confidentiality came to mind but it is a little bit long, eh?
The way this should work: Community provides input on what the term should be and hopefully we get some sort of consensus. Then somebody builds a pull request with the changes in simplewallet (and whatever other software uses the terminology) and it gets merged.
I think the term "Privacy Level" makes the most sense to current users, and I think it will make the most sense to future users. Also, one of the main pillars of Monero is Private, so it fits neatly within the three pillar framework.
Other people have noted their support for the term Privacy Level, mymonero uses it and there seems to be some consensus on this term. Also, I think the term privacy level makes the most sense in the GUI being currently worked on.
Maybe give the discussion a couple more months then somebody (I can do it even) can submit a pull request for the change on github.
