Both are centralized coordinators is a trade off.

Wasabi uses fees to pay Chainanalysis to survey and block users. If you are found on the blacklist the coordinator confiscates your bitcoin that you are coinjoining. They technically get the best anonymity set because they do large coinsjoin approx 250 input and 250 outputs

Whirlpool doesn’t use coinjoin fees for Chainanalysis, best UI by far of any coinjoin implementation, easily integrated in Sparrow. Centralized coordinator is a downside. Smaller anonymity set because only 5 inputs and 5 outputs per coinjoin but can do multiple coinjoin rounds

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I forgot to caveat one more thing. Wasabi sometimes reuses addresses on mixes which would break and link anonymity sets which is horrible for privacy and something you need to be diligent on. Not that this can’t happen with other coinjoins implementations, but is a known issue with wasabi

That isn't an issue for anyone who doesn't reuse addresses.

In many cases address reuse is alright, like someone receiving donations to a static address and then coinjoins them to protect future transaction history.

Coinjoin coordinators cannot steal Bitcoin. You are lying to scare people out of using non custodial privacy tools.

What happens to blacklisted coins?

Where did I say not to not to use non custodial privacy tools in my post? Im telling them the trade offs

The user always has his private keys, so he can always make a single user transaction. He can also do a coinjoin with another coordinator or even a different implementation.

They are rejected from joining the coinjoin round. All coinjoin protocols today are atomic in nature and incapable of stealing funds.

Thanks! I learned this distinction! Appreciate the feedback

Alright, I misspoke I thought at the point of entering the coinjoin coordinator the bitcoin was no longer in control of the person entering it. How do you blacklist addresses from entering though? Does it just send as “change” back to the address that was sent in if it is blacklisted.

If an input is blacklisted, the input doesn't move at all. It just stays in the original address.

Thank you for the clarification. I apologize for messing that up. I made an incorrect assumption.

Unfortunately there are no decentralized coinjoin implementations currently, and the existing theoretical concepts have difficulties to scale and work reliably under adversarial conditions.

I know this is true for Wasabi / Whirlpool but correct me if I’m wrong, but JoinMarket is decentralized unless I’m missing something. With no central coordinator it can take longer to get a coinjoin because it is maker/taker model obviously less anonymity compared to Wasabi and Whirlpool.