Hey, so I just re-listened to that episode. I understand uxto management from a privacy perspective. But I was more so curious about uxto management from a cost of on chain transaction fee’s.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

from a cost perspective you want fewer larger size utxos

onchain transaction fees are calculated based on size in bytes not the amount of sats sent, so the more utxos required on the input side the higher the fee paid

therefore you want to reduce the number of utxos you have while being mindful that any utxos you consolidate will be naturally linked to each other

Do you think this problem could be solved by fedimints in the future?

yes, with the tradeoff of rug pull risk

I get confused about what to do after coinjoining. I want to consolidate several whirlpool outputs but then if I ever spend from the large consolidated utxo, I understand I’ll have to start mixing the change again to get any privacy again…

So almost sounds like I should keep each of the coinjoin outputs as separate utxos so they all remain ‘clean’

the smallest size whirlpool utxo is 100k sats, probably large enough to not be an issue, it’s a balancing act, some consolidation post whirlpool, especially if you do multiple whirlpool rounds could be worth it for long term savings

There is a fine line when it comes to UTXO consolidation. Can't consolidate too much, otherwise future onchain spends can dox how much you hold.

always groom mining wallets

Advanced wallets like Ledger Live let users select UTXOs by hand. So you can decide to make transaction to yourself in low fee periods to make a big UTXO out of small ones. But keep privacy in mind.

I struggle with indecision as far as consolidating UTXOs goes. It really depends on personal preference as far as what UTXO size is too small. If you use lightning and more than anything privacy.

Recently I've really only consolidated UTXOs that already use the same address.