I'll answer any questions you have about the privacy guarantees of Wasabi's coinjoin protocol and I'll be nice about it. DM me or post here with any questions.
Wasabi solves the network level privacy of cold storage as well, you can use Wasabi as the front end to privately sync and broadcast transactions for your Coldcard, Trezor, or Ledger. Your cold wallet addresses don't get leaked to any electrum servers since filters are used to identify any block that contains one of your transactions, followed by downloading the entire block locally.
You can merge multiple private UTXOs, but your resulting transaction will inherit the lowest anon score of the inputs you used to create it.
Nothing.
Wasabi and Samourai are the respective clients.
WabiSabi and Whirlpool are their respective implementations. Mutiple clients can use the same implementation - Wasabi, BTCPay, and soon Trezor all use the WabiSabi protocol, while Samourai and Sparrow use the whirlpool implementation.
Your problem of pool sizes and postmix spending are both solved by WabiSabi since all of your inputs will gain privacy without leaving change, and postmix transactions using coinjoined inputs are not required to pay coordinator fees to make your change private again.
The Wasabi model doesn't offer this sort of indefinite mixing because it doesn't make sense for one user to be charged for the blockspace a different user consumes.
On the second point, having more pools absolutely does lead to less privacy compared to combining all inputs in a single round because you eliminate all of the potential probabilities that are created from the composition of each additional input and decomposition of each additional output. Compare these two coinjoin transactions:
WabiSabi: https://mempool.space/tx/01a1a055719129397fb8344b5a09e6cfe72868c8e1d750e621d8b580c96bf77b
Whirlpool: https://mempool.space/tx/1825e9f7f0548fb4957d389b20e0e46d1ccc9ee50a75ebd19f7a49cdee761e50
In the WabiSabi coinjoin, there are 16 inputs for 0.001 and 13 outputs for 0.001 compared to 5 of each in the Whirlpool coinjoin. We can see the anonymity set is higher at face value due to the round's size, but the more important design choice is that there is not a 1:1 ratio of inputs to outputs of the same value. The 3 "missing" 0.001 outputs that are needed to complete our naive assumption don't exist since because they were either broken into smaller standard outputs, or merged into bigger standard outputs, inheriting privacy from all other inputs and outputs in the transaction that are not equal to 0.001 exactly.
Cheaper for a single user, but not the average user. Impatient mixers subsidize patient mixers, but the overall cost is still higher for the group as a whole per anonset.
Can you elaborate what sort of scenarios that would benefit from restricting the pool size? Wasabi has standard amounts between 5000 sats and 1374.38953472 BTC all coinjoining in the same round. Fragmenting this into smaller pools would lead to less privacy, not more.
https://i.giphy.com/media/26BRrSvJUa0crqw4E/giphy.webp
Keep sponsoring podcasts & influencers (others protocols don't need to, for some reason).
Keep working with chain surveillance. π€‘π€¦ββοΈ
Citadel Dispatch, episode 15. Enjoy π
https://www.podpage.com/citadeldispatch/citadel-dispatch-e015-bitcoin/
I guess you have no actual complaints about the powerful privacy of WabiSabi coinjoins then since all you can do is bitch about influencers and sponsorships instead.
WabiSabi is a protocol, it's more private and more cost/blockspace efficient than the Whirlpool implementation regardless of which coordinator you use. There's no point in crippling the privacy of BTCPay users by adopting an inferior coinjoin implementation.
This concept of pool sizes is fixed entirely with Wasabi Wallet since there are 79 possible standard denominations. This allows you to register many inputs at once and decompose them privately without leaving any traceable change or links between each input.
Samourai's Whirlpool is extremely expensive to use compared to Wasabi Wallet's coinjoins, so it's a bad example IMO. Wasabi's coordinator fees max out at 0.3%, and amounts under 1 million sats don't pay any coordinator fees at all.
Wasabi Wallet does this already. To further protect your network level privacy, each block is downloaded with a single use Tor identity as well so there's no way to even associate multiple blocks to a single wallet.
Why do you prefer Whirlpool?
"They" are jealous. Wasabi has the biggest, most private coinjoins with the cheapest fees π
This disadvantages of whirlpool are the small round sizes (5 inputs and 5 outputs) and unmixable change. Wasabi coinjoins are more efficient and more private since they have much larger rounds and eliminate the problem of traceable change. Here's a side by side list of features:
#[7]
Have you tried the 2.0 version of Wasabi? Coinjoins run passively in the background, don't produce any identifiable change outputs, and doesn't require the user to perform any coin control (even for consolidation, since that is done within a coinjoin).
Here's a short demonstration:
Ironically, isn't Saylor the "poorest" Bitcoiner at current prices since his stack is mostly borrowed and likely valued at a loss atm?