Subnostr

Network-level privacy of the various coinjoins from the coordinator's point of view, ordered from most vulnerable to least.

Whirpool (regardless of whether you use tor or not, it's useless):

A (192.168.1.1) - D (192.168.1.1)

B (192.168.1.2) - C (192.168.1.2)

C (192.168.1.3) - B (192.168.1.3)

D (192.168.1.4) - A (192.168.1.4)

Wabisabi (let's assume that a user has two entries. I put the second one because it is a centralized service, but it really has a good implementation):

A (192.168.1.1) - D (192.168.1.4)

B (192.168.1.2) - C (192.168.1.5)

C (192.168.1.3) - B (192.168.1.6)

D (192.168.1.1) - A (192.168.1.7)

Joinstr(The VPN is a centralized point but the coordinator is a relay, and the relay will only see the same ip, although you could associate the two, vpn and relay, if a 3-letter agency intervenes, you can mitigate by changing relay between rounds):

A (192.168.1.1) - D (192.168.1.1)

B (192.168.1.1) - C (192.168.1.1)

C (192.168.1.1) - B (192.168.1.1)

D (192.168.1.1) - A (192.168.1.1)

Joinmarket, the coordinator is the taker, this mitigates the collection of the information, therefore it is not vulnerable to a network level tagging attack (from my point of view).

A (192.168.1.1) - D (192.168.1.1)

B (192.168.1.2) - C (192.168.1.2)

C (192.168.1.3) - B (192.168.1.3)

D (192.168.1.4) - A (192.168.1.4)

Cody 1y ago

This is super helpful and not discussed very often. Relieved to hear the JM scores highly. JM FTW!!

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Cyph3rp9nk 1y ago

Keep in mind that this is at the network level, at the chain level it is another story and joinmarket is not the most private, although it can be private if used well.

Cody 1y ago

Yes 💯, I'm very happy with the on chain privacy that I get with JM. And I think the on chain aspect is much more well defined than at the Network Level.