A single coordinator's customer policy does not make any difference to the protocol itself. I'm comparing the privacy of competing implementations, I'm not comparing the business practices of companies that use those implementations.
Discussion
The incentives of this protocol are broken. Name one alternative wasabi coordinator. Maybe the chaincase one, is it still maintained? Doubt it. And if there was one, the liquidity is so low, that you’ll hardly gain any privacy.
But to offer you a hand: for normal usage, I think the address reuse problem, Wasabi isn’t able to solve is a minor problem in my view, embarrassing though.
My main issue is their compliance bootlicking. Writing blog articles about crypto anarchy on the one hand and blacklisting non compliant utxos. What hypocrites…
None of the reasons you just listed give any weaknesses of the WabiSabi. You are just complaining about a single coordinator's business practices instead of proving your claims that WabiSabi isn't the most private way to create a coinjoin transaction.
You can look up more than enough adress reuses on chain.
But don’t get me wrong, I might consider using wabisabi if there would be a based coordinator around.
So please give me a hint which one I should use…
Until Wasabi adds a text input that allows casual users to point the wallet at a different WabiSabi coordinator, they're just playing shell games and the coordinator isn't really a separate entity from the wallet. Pretending it is doesn't change anything.
Using a different coordinator wouldn't do anything to make WabiSabi more private. ANYONE can already run their own WabiSabi coordinator with BTCPay Server's plugin, how are you not satisfied with that?
I rephrase my statement: if I spin up my own coordinator, can I access the wasabi wallet liquidity pool?
Stop rephrasing your statement about coordinators and focus on your original claim that WabiSabi is not the best way to construct a coinjoin transaction.
Can you explain to me why Whirlpool coinjoins should not be deprecated by their coordinator since it has been made obsolete by WabiSabi coinjoins?
Based on your technical understanding I assume the person behind your nym is nopara. Sorry for the doxx.
Since liquidity pool and coordinator are one, it makes a big difference in privacy what coordinator I use.
How about we schedule a call? You can speak to me to verify I'm not nopara and you can explain to me why the obsolete Whirlpool protocol should not be deprecated by its coordinator in favor of the more private, more efficient WabiSabi protocol.
Whirlpool fees tend to zero in the long run. The "pay once mix forever" model rewards building high anonymity sets by making it virtually free per anonset the more rounds you participate in. Wasabi fees look like a ripoff in comparison.
Your remix is not "virtually free", it costs just as much in mining fees- The only difference is that the mining fees are paid for by users who participate in fewer rounds than you do.
The overall mining fee cost per anonymity set is less using WabiSabi than Whirlpool, having one user pay for another does not change the worse overall efficiency.
I think you misunderstand the Whirlpool model. Only new entrants pay mining fees. Remixers ride free forever both in terms of coordinator fees and mining fees. It doesn't matter if it's your first remix or your 1000th. It's virtually free *in the long run*, not on a one off basis obviously. That's just math.
If I have a UTXO and I want to raise its anonset to 1000, which is cheaper: Wasabi which will probably require me to do 20 rounds and charge me for each, or Whirlpool which will require 200 rounds but charge only for the first one?
I am aware the mining fees for remixes by new entrants to the pool.
Your example only focuses on the benefits localized to a single remixer from the round without mentioning the downsides are externalized to new users. If all 5 participants from a round decided they wanted to remix for free, then they all become "stuck" indefinitely until the pool grows bigger with new users to pay for their mining fees.
That's a valid point, but the cost is really time then, not money. And it's what allows it to beat Wasabi in terms of pricing.
🌀 obsolete? No signs for that. But to calm the waves: I really like the idea of bringing a coinjoin implementation to btcpay. So if you spin up a non compliant coordinator and provide decent liquidity I am in.
Whirlpool is absolete because WabiSabi doesn't peel your UTXO first like Whirpool does. ALL your coins in a WabiSabi coinjoin are broken down to be made private, even those that don't match other standard amounts.
We’re turning in circles. I will happily use wasabi if they’ll stop attacking Bitcoin and it’s ethos.
I'm not arguing that you should use Wasabi or its coordinator specifically, I'm arguing the Whirlpool protocol is a less private way to arrange outputs from non private inputs than the WabiSabi protocol. The coordinator of Whirlpool transactions needs to explain why they haven't upgraded yet.
Unless you end up with slightly less than 0.1 BTC. In which case you have a large amount of toxic change that you can't do anything with.
The minimum denominations for WabiSabi coinjoins is 5000 sats, not 0.1 BTC, so traceable change is completely eliminated. Please check the coinjoin transactions from each protocol we are comparing against each other:
WabiSabi: mempool.space/tx/01a1a055719129397fb8344b5a09e6cfe72868c8e1d750e621d8b580c96bf77b
Whirlpool: mempool.space/tx/1825e9f7f0548fb4957d389b20e0e46d1ccc9ee50a75ebd19f7a49cdee761e50
Has that number been updated recently? I remember it being 0.1.
I stopped using Wasabi after the entity running both the coordinator and the wallet partnered with nefarious actors, so my numbers here may not be up to date.
The Zerolink protocol (that Whirlpool uses) had 0.1 denominations only, but that was upgraded to WabiSabi last summer with the release of Wasabi Wallet 2.0
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.
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.
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.
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.