Replying to Avatar Kruw

-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I don't see any technical issues with Shinobi's article other than it's now outdated with the release of Wasabi 2.0/WabiSabi.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.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.