Check out Void - it's a really unique coinjoin only idea!
Yeah that's my point... zkSNACKS's coordinator ALSO doesn't charge coordinator fees for remixes AND doesn't charge for change mixes AND doesn't charge inputs 1 million sats or lower. They are just way more generous than the Samourai coordinator.
Cool, where can I read about it?
Okay, what's the reason Samourai chooses to charge so much for their coordinator fees compared to how much zkSNACKS chooses to charge for their coordinator fees? Remember, zkSNACKS doesn't charge ANY coordinator fees on inputs 0.01 BTC or lower.
Samourai's coordinator charges an insane amount more compared to zkSNACKS' coordinator fees for WabiSabi coinjoins: Any input under 0.01 BTC doesn't pay any coordinator fees at all, along with free remixing and free change mixing no matter what size input you register.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
What's weak about it? Look at the blockchain and you can see how much better privacy a WabiSabi coinjoin provides than a Whirlpool coinjoin yourself:
#[5]
You can improve your privacy and save a lot on fees by using Wasabi Wallet instead of Whirlpool for coinjoins. Check out the benefits here: #[1]