Nostr Web Client

> Coordinator fees do not protect you at all against a Sybil attacker if the coordinator is part of your threat model

I AM AWARE AND HAVE STATED THIS MANY TIMES. INCLUDING THE THREAD YOU LINKED. THIS IS TRUE FOR ALL CENTRALIZED COORDINATOR MODELS.

TX0 IMPROVES SYBIL RESISTANCE AGAINST MALICIOUS ATTACKERS THAT ARE NOT THE COORDINATOR. WOULD HAVE TO PAY SIGNIFICANTLY MORE TO FLOOD ROUNDS THAN HONEST PARTICIPANTS.

I NEVER RESPONDED TO YOUR LAST COMMENT BECAUSE IT WAS PURE GIBBERISH.

Kruw 2y ago

YOU HAVE IT LITERALLY BACKWARDS. FLOODING COSTS LESS IN COORDINATOR FEES THAN CONSOLIDATING, GIVING SYBIL ATTACKERS AN UPPER HAND OVER HONEST USERS:

Let's say you have 10 million sats. If you flood the 1 million sat pool with 10 UTXOs, you pay 100k sats to the coordinator. If you only create 2 UTXOs and participate in the 5 million sat pool, you pay 175k sats to the coordinator. THE FLOODER PAYS LESS TO THE COORDINATOR THAN THE HONEST USER.

You still haven't even made an attempt to address the main issue which has nothing to do with Whirlpool's backward coordinator fee incentives - the REAL issue is how premixing needlessly consumes block space while HARMING the privacy gains of coinjoin participants:

#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=1544x1491&blurhash=%7C8SF%40R%25M%7EqMy%25hgLogt8wgtRM_D%25xvR%24xv-qV%40oNxbbakCoLR*aejZWUj%5Bxuj%5D%25MWURQWANFoMW-%3FcMxIU%25gNFWExuRjRkM%7BX7xbnQR%2BbEWBX7spf%2CxakBIonjazWBxHNssEt7kCRPtQV%5BM%7BxuRjIUof%25LRkV%40oeWCWAog&x=3226e49be19cf5640fddfd6ca3bccf5b980d5202c66abdcbe16ee69572319df1

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ODELL 2y ago

YOU SHOULD ACTUALLY TEST WHIRLPOOL BECAUSE YOU FUNDAMENTALLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW IT WORKS.

UTXOS IN THE SAME TXO ARE FORCED INTO DIFFERENT ROUNDS.

MEANWHILE YOU ARE ADVOCATING FOR A COORDINATOR THAT ACTIVELY COOPERATES WITH SURVEILLANCE FIRMS AND A PROTOCOL THAT GRINDS UTXOS INTO DUST.

Kruw 2y ago

A Sybil attacker is not limited to using a single client, they can tx0 with multiple clients in order to participate in the same round. YOU APPARENTLY DO NOT FUNDAMENTALLY UNDERSTAND HOW IT WORKS SINCE YOU THOUGHT FLOODING PAYS LESS IN COORDINATOR FEES COMPARED TO CONSOLIDATING.

I've never "advocated for a coordinator", I'm pointing out technical flaws that waste block space and harm privacy and create unbalanced incentives that subsidize Sybil attacks and all you do is VIRTUE SIGNAL TO DEFLECT FROM REAL ARGUMENTS. If you really gave a shit about "censorship", you would just check the "run coordinator" box on your BTCPay Server coinjoin plugin. Do you have the balls?

Let's talk about dust grinding! Whirlpool is paying 369 sats in fees to create a non private output for 305 sats??? https://mempool.space/address/bc1qp25y8kfywz88myuh7ed3dmx3vv2z2dwuxhjnlv

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 2y ago

will do when i has enough that i don't need to spend in 3 months or less

Kruw 2y ago

Try BTCPay Server's coinjoin plugin instead of Whirlpool. It's uses an upgraded protocol that's MASSIVELY cheaper, and you can make EVERY spend a coinjoin, without revealing common input ownership or creating toxic change -

nostr:nevent1qqs2lypcwr8d2rjcawh5a534pfq3marffrt5eqawdlurcgt0cqqh27gppamhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5pzpywf5hs6jazpznr0uttp4ex7sf3fa24qldf0fq5gpy78ulsrd7pjqvzqqqqqqyvu22vn

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 2y ago

i met one of the guys behind btcpay so i'm keeping that on my radar

Jones 2y ago

So that the meaning of this conversation an ad.

On question : if people are smart enough to see that coinjoin or btcpay server are not for privacy is that ok ?