Replying to Avatar Alfred Hodler

That's not at all what we were talking about. We were talking about pointing Wasabi at different coordinators because someone may not like your Chainalysis partnership. Now you're talking about spinning up your own coordinator using a 3rd party tool. That's completely unrelated to using the same Wasabi binary with a different coordinator.

I am thoroughly confused as to why you suddenly changed topics.
Avatar
Kruw 2y ago

We are talking about which protocol is more private: WabiSabi, or Whirlpool

You are trying to discuss coordinator customer policies, which is unrelated to our discussion about the best way to take non pivate inputs and turn them into private outputs without revealing any of these UTXOs belong to the same wallet.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Alfred Hodler 2y ago

Strictly speaking Wasabi is worse because of the peeling model.

"Additionally Wasabi outputs are in the order in which they are registered". Has this been fixed?

https://twitter.com/ODELL/status/1151882688053334016

Maybe #[9]​ wants to chime in.

Avatar
Kruw 2y ago

WabiSabi doesn't have a peeling model. Traceable change is eliminated unless your input is larger than all other inputs combined.

Whirlpool is worse since peels the change in tx0 and leaves it there, unable to be spent.