Sure, I guess anything is possible, but if we would be fair in our assumptions I don't see why the same couldn't be said of bitcoin node IPs. Would want more proof that this is the case for either.
So, is all FOSS considered gatekeeping to you? Because it works the same way.
If an update is really that contentious it will fork. Monero community has a clear goal to pursue, private p2p digital cash, and been overwhelmingly in agreement on updates.
Willing to bet you have never taken advantage of bitcoin's transparency and manually validated supply. So, a bit larpish. But you might trust a node is doing it correctly for you. Exactly like a monero node. Just because you don't know how pedersen commitments work doesn't mean your node can't do it.
#[7]
Peers seen in 24 hours, not 24 peers
Yes, but if you're worried about the tiny inflation that monero has (less than that of gold) it is irrelevant if you only use Monero to transact and Bitcoin to save longterm.
Best of both worlds.
But isn't there only one centralized coordinator atm? That is essentially blacklisting coins which is pretty ridiculous for a privacy protocol. Assuming guilt with no evidence, only that a chain analysis company has flagged it (no conflict of interest for the chain analysis company to do so /s) in an industry based on probabilities. But I guess they are free to do that as I am free to avoid them.
The implied tradeoff is that there are less occurrences of each standard denomination compared to WW1/Whirlpool which forces every participant to create the same size standard denomination: https://blog.wasabiwallet.io/privacy-guarantees-of-wasabi-wallet-2-0/
However, this tradeoff is overwhelmingly negated once the round gets large enough; Since there is no 1:1 ratio of participants to standard amounts of a single size like WW1 or Whirlpool, observers have to consider all the possible compositions and decompositions of ANY input and ANY output.
Since zkSNACKS has a minimum of 150 inputs per round (up to 400), the possibilities break your calculator:
Appreciate the engagement and honesty. Going to mull this over.
In your opinion would this be correct:
Whirlpool > Wasabi 1.0
Wasabi 2.0 > Whirlpool
Or would it be fair to say Whirlpool prioritizes uniformity/pool size above any efficiency, cost, and speed gains. While Wasabi 2.0 protocol will take a big efficiency, cost, and speed gain for a small uniformity/pool size loss?
The new bitcoin magazine article you linked comes from a Wasabi developer not a more neutral party like Shinobi. The WabiSabi implementation is fairly new, correct?
If we are using biased opinions, I would like to hear Kortik's counter to these points as he seems to have a deeper technical understanding than I do. #[6]
If I assume all these points are true, they would carry much more weight if they didn't use chain analysis. Really is a huge blow to their credibility and effectiveness of entering their service in the first place.
If they are going to use chain analysis to tell them what is allowed, doesn't this defeat the purpose? What if I received coins from some nefarious actor before going into their mix unbeknownst to me? Will I be rejected and flagged? Runs contrary to the service as that is what you are trying to avoid when trying to mix.
https://sethforprivacy.com/posts/fungibility-graveyard/#wasabi
Cashu is custodial.
Fedimints are multisig custody with guardians, better, but still custodial.
"Cashu offers near-perfect privacy for users of custodial Bitcoin applications."
You see no benefit to nearly anyone being able to participate, and discretely mine, on already available general purpose consumer hardware? From that aspect, I don't see how it is not more decentralized.
Bitcoin mining becomes less in reach of the average pleb because of highly specialized and expensive ASICs. Increasingly done by easily targetable corporate mining farms.
I can see arguments for both.
💯
If we based what tools we used on their creators we would use nothing. Personalities and entities involved are irrelevant if it is open source and verifiable. Good can unintentionally come from evil and vice versa.
-I mean that anyone with a copy of the blockchain can see those payments were made to the same user since they were merged by that user in a self spend transaction.
-Fair
-WabiSabi has even better privacy than "postmix spending" - You can send payments directly in a coinjoin. The recipient only sees their coins came from some combination of 150-400 inputs and no other information, such as the sender's change.
At the pinnacle of two way transactional privacy, WabiSabi enables discreet payments using key verified anonymous credentials . This means that a recipient can accept coins without even the sender knowing what their Bitcoin address is: https://twitter.com/MrKukks/status/1619294492854747138
Wasabi has even better remixing incentives than Whirlpool does: In addition to remixes being free of coordinator fees, change mixing is ALSO free as well. Whirlpool has backwards remixing incentives because sybil attackers have zero time preference when it comes to waiting in line to remix, placing legitimate users who want to gain privacy at an economic disadvantage to attackers.
I don't see any technical issues with Shinobi's article other than it's now outdated with the release of Wasabi 2.0/WabiSabi. You can find a brand new comparative analysis here: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/toxic-change-wabisabi-bitcoin-coinjoin-privacy
Too bad there is such a big feud between both camps. Hard to sift thru FUD on both sides. Would be good to hash out the pros and cons of each and find common agreement and see where each could improve. I feel it is too late though. Too many harsh words and egos.
Wasabi contracting chain analysis makes it all a non-starter though. Wish they would have never done that, then we could at least have a small chance of good faith discussion. I'm still open to the technical conversation of the protocols themselves though.
Doxxic change is NOT a requirement for equal outputs to exist. Wasabi Wallet's coinjoins eliminate traceable change, which entirely solves Whirlpool's issue of creating unspendable non private coins: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/toxic-change-wabisabi-bitcoin-coinjoin-privacy
What is the trade-off for this in your opinion? (if any, but I suspect there is)
Not agreeing with whatever that guy was saying to Jeff, but Monero and Bitcoin nodes are in the same ballpark. Near 11k reachable xmr nodes vs 16.6k reachable bitcoin nodes . Impressive to me considering xmr is a much smaller market. I'm running both.
You don't have to save or stack in Monero, if that is your outlook, you can take advantage of it's usefeul properties and just use it.
Continue saving in Bitcoin. Doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. Use the tool that fits the job.
Privacy at the loss of custody.
Sounds like a downgrade to me. You can keep both on Monero.
Funny analogy and I take it is a compliment coming from a maxi
But you can take advantage of Monero's superior privacy, faster confs, and cheaper transactions, by using it - while still only saving in Bitcoin. Not mutually exclusive. Best of both.
They're tools. Makes sense to use a hammer for nails, and screwdriver for screws. But ultimately do whatever you want.
If you want simple, cheap, comprehensive, default, superior privacy and fungibility - transact with Monero
If you want to preserve the value of your savings (proven longterm so far) - save in Bitcoin
I think that is something many bitcoiners can get behind and makes sense. The spend in Monero, save in Bitcoin, checkings vs savings model.
Of course you can still attain good enough bitcoin privacy, that is more expensive to do, time-consuming, requires some technical knowledge and understanding, and even after doing perfectly is still not as good as Monero. Akin to using a screwdriver as a hammer.
But do whatever you want. DYOR.
