Whirlpool is mathematically the strongest coinjoin.
Whirlpool is the only zerolink coinjoin.
Whirlpool is the only coinjoin without deterministic links.
Whirlpool is the only airtight coinjoin without leakage.
Run the numbers.
Discussion
There is no Bitcoin coinjoin in the world that can give you the Tx obfuscation that Monero gives you.
If you transact purely in monero, then monero is better privacy than bitcoin+coinjoin. Nobody is gonna argue against that.
Now if you are suggesting taking your non-private bitcoin and swapping it into monero and then back into bitcoin instead of using bitcoin+coinjoin It does look like bitcoin-monero non-custodial cross-chain atomic swaps are possible, but I've not used it.
https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/1126.pdf
But can't really compare. The ring signatures in Monero are all enforced and participants are not required to be online and coordinated. Also there is no real concept of a post mix where the anon set reduces periodically for a transaction as every tx has CT and several mixins
A Monero transaction between Bitcoin wallets will obfuscate the money trail. It's a viable solution to breaking the Tx link on your Bitcoin. Better if the vendor you're trying to transact with accepts Monero directly of course.
Chainalysis claims they can de-anonymize a significant portion of Monero transactions. I'm rather dubious toward that claim.
It’s a true claim actually Atomic swap to Monero provides an effective solution for Doxic change outputs. But if you are swapping into Monero, you would be well advised to not swap back immediately. Best to wait a little bit before doing so to avoid the guess first heuristic.
You would also want to avoid sending the same amount back as this will allow simple amount correlation. Monero's opaque blockchain has privacy advantages but whirlpool does a good job breaking deterministic links and providing forward looking privacy. You would need to determine your level of privacy requirement and transact accordingly. If you want to stay in BTC the whirlpool is best solution and swapping doxic change to xmr is effective for that use case. Also liquidity is def an advantage in BTC's favour.
My preferred way to convert Bitcoin to Monero is actually to buy hashpower on nicehash and mine to a pool. That way I get freshly minted XMR sent to a wallet that nobody knows exists yet.
Isn't Monero a shitcoin?
I've been using it since 2016, and no.
It's fully decentralized, worked on by an ad-hoc community of developers just like Bitcoin.
It's more decentralized than Bitcoin because it can ONLY be CPU mined. You can't run RandomX on a GPU or ASIC. You can't build an ASIC to run RandomX because you're basically reinventing all the features of a CPU.
Okay...so its only usavle for CPU like desktop or laptops?
There's still some ways of fucking up monero and leaking your IP address with certain light wallets, but yeah better privacy at default.
Where is #[2]
To talk about % of dojo that ran by Samourai vs your own node. Bull shit argument
What about ledger live do they know peoples xpub? Or cold card that asks to use Electrum wallet with public backend servers to index balances. do those public electum servers know thier xpub?
First of all SW coordinator is blinded run over tor so even if Samourai can track xpubs they don’t know entities ip and even if they do they have no idea about what happens post mix txns.
For equal outputs to exist there will be change and coordinator is blinded (soon decentralized) It doesn't know the links between a coinjoin's inputs and outputs. That was one of the major goals of the zerolink framework. Also doxxic change is completely unaffected by mixes since it has never been mixed.
Every SW user knows exactly what to do with that doxxic change so there is no combining with other doxxic change that didn’t come from the same source.
The Tx0 makes all your UTXO's share a tx hash, which prevents them from mixing with each other, preventing an "accidental" Sybil attack from entering a large amount of BTC, Samourai separates the coordinator fee in the Tx0 no fee flagging in the fee addresses. Every communication between Alice and the coordinator is made with a different Tor identity. It's transparent for the coordinator if one of the messages is actually sent by Bob, so when Alice sends her clear output to the coordinator it's made with a Tor identity different from the Tor identity used to submit the input and the blinded ouput. Who is using this Tor identity is transparent for the coordinator. It’s two separate Tor identities. This was even in the original zerolink docs IIRC.
So once coins are mixed, they are segregated and can't "accidentally" make their way back to unmixed section of wallet. You have to manually generate a receive address and send from postmix to get utxos back there, which obviously you shouldn't do. This is the only way to have true ZeroLink, where a user can't spend mixed and unmixed together. SW doing ZeroLink original spec, whihc is simultaneous denominated pools, max entropy mixes for the number of inputs/outputs, never 2 or more same previous tx in a same mix, and unequal amount coinjoined spends post-mix if the user chooses.
There is no equivalent to SW and your #[3] argument about who is using sw dojo vs their own dojo has no weight and not valid at all. I read on twitter
Whirlpool leaves deterministic links because it peels the change during the tx0 used to create sized equal outputs. I just unmixed the Whirlpool transaction from your screenshot to reveal the change: https://mempool.space/tx/323df21f0b0756f98336437aa3d2fb87e02b59f1946b714a7b09df04d429dec2
Address bc1qgwv9hn979rex0rhfp3cknfdkyrgk04493gclvv belonging to Whirlpool input 1 created 0.01346981 BTC in traceable change which has 100% deterministic links to bc1qjy3zud5c7qypvgccgvptvaxkcsg6g4jl3u4tdy
Address bc1q528pyda90y4j9nuqrcm65rlxz9txljtn208dqm belonging to Whirlpool input 3 created 0.01971146 BTC in traceable change which has 100% deterministic links to bc1q50akm6ggcwgjext09tuz0rcl6cya2huu70pef4
Feel free to post any other Whirlpool tx ids and I'll unmix them too.
You are basically talking about the doxxic change from whirlpool. Do you know that the mixed bitcoin can not be spend with the doxxic change in the same transaction?
The whole point is, that after one mix there are no deterministic links
In reality you unmix nothing.
BUT we can talk about the Address Reuses in Wasabi, this topic would be interesting, right?
What do you mean "I unmix nothing"? I just showed you the exact addresses and exact amounts belonging to two of the Whirlpool participants. This information would have been hidden in a WabiSabi coinjoin, but Whirlpool leaks it.
You just explained how a TX0 works. Congrats. That is nothing special ;) Just read the docu again. I'm pretty sure you will learn alot
Exactly. Instead of peeling your change with tx0 to make it traceable, WabiSabi makes EVERY spend a coinjoin. Leftover change gets turned into amounts of equal sizes which can't be linked to the original input.
It makes nothing traceable. You have really no clue how Whirlpool works, right? You are just talking about the TX0. You can't unmix a Whirlpool TX ;)
What do you mean "it makes nothing traceable?" I literally just traced the exact addresses and amounts of inputs with a 100% deterministic link to each of the new Whirlpool entrants.
If their coordinator upgraded from Whirlpool to WabiSabi, they would not have created these traceable links.
You have rwlly absolut no clue, that's a shame. I guess you do bad PR and nothing more because otherwise Wasabi should fire you immediatly
Your are showing something like this
https://kycp.org/#/416da38ee147bdc86fd543a474315be920f1138df44560a56bfc3346a7c436df
Btw this is a Wasabi CJ with merges ...
Yes. As you can see from the Wasabi coinjoin, ALL of the coins are made private, so there is no way to unpeel it like I just did with the Whirlpool coinjoin to reveal the new entrants' change addresses.
Senseless with you as you don't understand the Whirlpool concept.
And merges are not very smart ;) But we end this discussion now because you don't understand it
Why aren't merges of private coins smart? It's still private since you keep the lowest anonymity score of the inputs you merge to create a transaction.
Holy shit dude this is like privacy 101 😂
Go ahead and explain privacy 101 then: If I'm a Whirlpool user with two 0.5 BTC mixed outputs and I need to make a 1 BTC payment, how do I spend my coins without merging them?
He has really no clue about whirlpool. Told him 5 times or more to read the Samourai docu. He talks about things which are official documented.
If Whirlpool's deterministic links to doxxic change are "officially documented", then stop falsely advertising the coinjoins as having no deterministic links on nostr.
Exactly. Unlike Whirlpool, WabiSabi has zero deterministic links: No doxxic change is ever created at all.
But Address Reuses and they are working with Chainalysis and are falling in love with censorship
Why doesn't the coordinator of Whirlpool coinjoins upgrade their protocol to coordinate WabiSabi coinjoins instead? This upgrade would eliminate their creation of this doxxic change.
Because Whirlpool works perfect and it's the best solution we have.
Whirlpool is obviously not perfect since I just unmixed the change.
ALL change gets mixed in WabiSabi coinjoins (unless there is a single input worth more than all other inputs combined).
Here's the WabiSabi transaction, look for yourself and try to unmix the change like I did for the Whirlpool coinjoin:
https://mempool.space/tx/01a1a055719129397fb8344b5a09e6cfe72868c8e1d750e621d8b580c96bf77b
You didn't unmix the whirlpool. You analyzed the Tx0 😂. As per usual, not understanding Tx0 has confused a gp fanboi about how coinjoin works
We don’t call it doxxic change for nuthin’
Exactly. Since the tx0 peels the change, it creates a 100% deterministic link between the address of the new Whirlpool mixers and the unmixed coins.
WabiSabi makes EVERY spend a coinjoin without revealing any two addresses are owned by the same wallet, so you never have such a thing as an "unmixed coin" at all.
Tx0 creates doxxic change, which can be sent to whirlpool again so what deterministic links are you talking about? If doxxic change too small for the pool size Samourai wallet let’s yuu freeze it so one can’t spend it anymore it’s actually automated and one must do manual unfreezing to even be able to spend it. It does not create 100% deterministic links unless one combines it with another doxxic change that came from a difference source. You do not understand how tx0 works in Samourai wallet. Stop spreading lies!
No he absolutely doesn’t or he is a troll, can’t figure out yet. Cause the dude is literally « unmixing » normal transactions 😅
Don't engage #[4] , he's a troll who makes only bad-faith arguments.
Clark, I've never interacted with you before, what are you talking about?
The bad faith claim is that Whirlpool has no deterministic links when it actually has 100% deterministic links to the change peeled in tx0.
WabiSabi eliminates these deterministic links since it makes EVERY spend a coinjoin.
They are no deterministic links in whirlpool. Tx0 change is not a part of the mix. The reason doxxic change exist is to have equal amount outputs. Wasabi is 🍌peel.
Wasabi coinjoins in order to create equal amounts without creating any doxxic change.
Only Whirlpool creates these deterministic links since the equal amounts are created as a result of a completely non-private self-spending tx0.
Here is whirlpool tx address - find deterministic links to this txn
https://mempool.space/address/bc1q87t0lqlyw09j87m5v56pryq3kls7xgydk03l9v
That address belongs to a remixer, not a new entrant. Whirlpool inputs 1, 4, and 5 leaked their doxxic change in a previous round, only Whirlpool inputs 2 and 3 leaked their doxxic change from this round.
show me how input 1, 4 and 5 leaked their doxxic change. show me on oxt.me or whatever chain anal tools wasabi uses.
just like SW demixed the wasabi and showed exactly where it peeled to so my eyes can see it in the video, show me that. or stop spreading lies.
Inputs 1, 4, and 5 leaked their doxxic change in an earlier round the same way inputs 2 and 3 leaked their doxxic change in this round. In any Whirlpool single round, you can only unpeel the doxxic change of the new entrants, not the remixers.
You are referencing normal tx. Not a coinjoin tx. Not a whirlpool tx. No shit there are deterministic links. Water is wet.
Tx0 creates doxxic change, which can be sent to whirlpool again so what deterministic links are you talking about? If doxxic change too small for the pool size Samourai wallet let’s yuu freeze it so one can’t spend it anymore it’s actually automated and one must do manual unfreezing to even be able to spend it. It does not create 100% deterministic links unless one combines it with another doxxic change that came from a difference source. You do not understand how tx0 works in Samourai wallet. Stop spreading lies!
When you send the toxic change to a smaller pool and pay the coordinator fee again, this doesn't eliminate the toxic waste, it just makes the waste smaller.
This is why Whirlpool's coordinator needs to upgrade to WabiSabi so the toxic change is never created at all.
I'm not referencing a "normal tx", I'm referencing the tx0 self spend that creates the equal sized outputs that entered the Whirlpool transaction.
You say "no shit there are deterministic links in Whirlpool" which is why I'm asking: "Why don't you upgrade to WabiSabi coinjoins so you never create these deterministic links?"
you didn't get how it works at all.
it's called toxic change for a reason.
wasabi is a total shitshow
Wasabi doesn't have toxic change. It makes all your coins private: https://mempool.space/tx/01a1a055719129397fb8344b5a09e6cfe72868c8e1d750e621d8b580c96bf77b
I don’t understand your reasoning sir. You are basically unmixing a non coinjoin transaction… The links are broken after the first mix, not before 🤨…
The reasoning is that this deterministic link should never be leaked. This is why Whirlpool's coordinator should upgrade to WabiSabi coinjoins, which makes ALL of your coins private instead of revealing toxic change.
Well that's not entirely true or honest to say it like that.
You end up with dust UTXOs in Wasabi with a very low anonset, so small that you actually is encouraged to consolidate them to spend them, thus destroying the privacy of all your precedent mixed coins...
What number do you consider to be a "very low anonset"?
This is Whirlpool 101 and the nature of perfectly uniform postmix coinjoins. It isn't "revealing" or "leaking" doxxic change. Doxxic change is split up before the mix, not after, so there is nothing revealed . Zero deterministic links to anything postmix.
Doxxic change is unavoidable if you want perfect coinjoins. The initial inputs before mixing are naturally not going to be equal to those of other mix participants. You can just mix the doxxic change again when you build up enough.
https://sovrnbitcoiner.com/perfect-coinjoins-are-the-points-of-reference-to-any-collaborative-tx/
When you say "Doxxic change is split up before the mix so there is nothing revealed", that's obviously wrong because I clearly just revealed the doxxic change of the equal sized inputs being entered into the coinjoin.
A "perfect coinjoin" would not produce Doxxic change at all. As you can see, WabiSabi coinjoins do not create toxic change, nothing is "split up before the mix" so ALL of your coins are made private instead: https://mempool.space/tx/01a1a055719129397fb8344b5a09e6cfe72868c8e1d750e621d8b580c96bf77b
You revealed nothing new that wasn't already known pre-mix.
I think you are getting too hung up on doxxic change. It isn't the important part. No one is spending that or claiming it is not deterministically linked. We spend what is being mixed, after it is mixed.
Assume you already know the location of 0.75 bitcoin before a mix. I split 0.25 bitcoin off to the side to park as doxxic change, and the other 0.50 bitcoin goes into the 0.50 pool to mix.
What new information did you gain that wasn't already known? Now point to the postmix 0.50 that is mine that I'm actually going to use (again, im not spending the doxxic change). You can't.
By perfect coinjoin I mean equal amounts on either side + maximum # of interpretations or N*(multiple of N) mix. Why does this matter? Because every given output is exactly as likely to be from a given input as any other. Max uniformity/fungibility = better for privacy:
https://kycp.org/#/323df21f0b0756f98336437aa3d2fb87e02b59f1946b714a7b09df04d429dec2
You do reveal new information: tx0 shows multiple payments were sent to the same user since they are consolidated before entering the coinjoin. Each of the entities that sent these payments become aware of each other as well as aware of new addresses that you own that none of them interacted with at all, which is both the doxxic change address as well as the addresses of the first equal sized output you create to enter the first round.
WabiSabi coinjoins hide all this information since every transaction is a coinjoin instead of revealing these links through the self spending tx0. Multiple payments can't be deterministically linked to the same user with WabiSabi since your inputs are consolidated within a coinjoin instead of consolidated in a self spend. No doxxic change is created either in WabiSabi coinjoins unless a whale submits a non private input worth more than the rest of the round's participants combined.
Just saw this in my notifications.
A few thoughts...
-Do you mean entities that sent me bitcoin in the past, whirlpool participants, or both?
-I'm not worried about the tx0 being briefly known before it is mixed (not connected to my identity), buying KYC free makes it irrelevant if I'm only going to spend on the other side of a mix.
-To my knowledge, another big thing lacking from Wasabi that would make it a more robust protocol is postmix spending tools and paynyms
I want to caveat that I would never use Wasabi even if they had a superior method (imo they don't if you are remixing. As a single mix, I can maybe see your argument in isolation possibly). If they are going to censor inputs and work with chain analysis companies that already disqualifies them as a privacy tool. If they hadn't taken that stance, I might be more open to their new implementation.
To attempt fighting my bias, I'll leave you with this short article by Shinobi. He makes a measured criticism of both of us:
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/wasabi-vs-samourai-for-bitcoin-mixing
You can also adopt good practices and mix in whirlpool utxo by utxo to avoid consolidating. He is just saying that tx0 in fact could force one more consolidation transaction if you are not careful. But it’s exactly the same for Wasabi users who certainly consolidate their utxo in order to fund their premix Wasabi wallet, and then start the mixing round.
Submitting your transactions one by one instead of consolidating is disincentivized by the Whirlpool coordinator's fee structures. Since the fee is fixed at 5% of the size of the pool, merging your inputs before coinjoining is massively discounted compared to paying that 5% fee on every individual input.
Wasabi does not have "premix" transactions. Your coins are consolidated within a coinjoin with 150-400 other inputs, so no two payments are ever linked to each other. Anyone who sent you Bitcoin only knows a single address belongs to you: The one they paid.
You have to fund your Wasabi Wallet with a funding transaction before starting to mix right ? This is what all users are doing, they fund their wallet (Samourai or Wasabi) considering the amount they want to make private. They don't do it on a UTXO by UTXO basis they just fund it.
So the deterministic links are created by this funding tx in both cases and the tx0 don't add new links. It just creates the toxic change which have to be dealt with, which is not easy I confess. But the txO in itself is not a problem
There is no "funding transaction" required in Wasabi Wallet. If you import your existing (segwit or taproot) keys, any your coins in your addresses would go directly into giant coinjoins without any intermediate transactions merging them & revealing common address ownership.
-I mean that anyone with a copy of the blockchain can see those payments were made to the same user since they were merged by that user in a self spend transaction.
-Fair
-WabiSabi has even better privacy than "postmix spending" - You can send payments directly in a coinjoin. The recipient only sees their coins came from some combination of 150-400 inputs and no other information, such as the sender's change.
At the pinnacle of two way transactional privacy, WabiSabi enables discreet payments using key verified anonymous credentials . This means that a recipient can accept coins without even the sender knowing what their Bitcoin address is: https://twitter.com/MrKukks/status/1619294492854747138
Wasabi has even better remixing incentives than Whirlpool does: In addition to remixes being free of coordinator fees, change mixing is ALSO free as well. Whirlpool has backwards remixing incentives because sybil attackers have zero time preference when it comes to waiting in line to remix, placing legitimate users who want to gain privacy at an economic disadvantage to attackers.
I don't see any technical issues with Shinobi's article other than it's now outdated with the release of Wasabi 2.0/WabiSabi. You can find a brand new comparative analysis here: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/toxic-change-wabisabi-bitcoin-coinjoin-privacy
Too bad there is such a big feud between both camps. Hard to sift thru FUD on both sides. Would be good to hash out the pros and cons of each and find common agreement and see where each could improve. I feel it is too late though. Too many harsh words and egos.
Wasabi contracting chain analysis makes it all a non-starter though. Wish they would have never done that, then we could at least have a small chance of good faith discussion. I'm still open to the technical conversation of the protocols themselves though.
33a37146a01debd751f7017d6cca2f361aa6c24e6cf8f918929ceeaf62e1d454
#[0]