op_return is not part of a coinjoin tx but rather a part of tx0.
And transaction zero is what requires in zerolink protocol.
And zerolink protocol breaks all these parameters: deterministic links, unmixed change, mixing with the same participants, mixing with yourself.
Therefore ban is very targeted attack it is even worse because without tx0 one cannot enter whirlpool (coinjoin) and therefore banning a conjoin after all.
Well, what can I say; you haven’t done your own research.
Sparrow uses the same whirlpool as Samourai nothing is compromised. Sparrow/Samourai whirlpool is same pool. That’s what we want the bigger the pools the better for everyone
Jam is not zerolink protocol and there is no postmix tools no thanks
Does nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk understands that op_return is not a part of coinjoin txn? This rant is misleading.
You see it’s not a coinjoin ban.
Tx0 is a prep txn NOT a coinjoin txn.
one needs to understand why it is a prep tx? Unlike a payjoin(stowaway) the purpose of a coinjoin is not to hide the nature of the transaction.
It's a bit like encryption: the objective is not to hide the fact that the text is encrypted, but to make it impossible to understand.
Also Tx0 fees are paid to the software publisher, not to the coordinator and no fee is paid during mixing, except fees that paid to miners.
then tx goes to premix/postmix which belongs to your own derivation path your wallet never loses possession of sats.
Therefore op_return contains info allowing the server to verify that the fee was actually paid to an address., because sending to whirlpool means sending to your own hardened derivation path that you control. It's an anti-spoofing mechanism. If the fee is not seen in the blockchain then the inputs are not registered. It also allows to not use a static fee for address collection.
The use of op return in tx0 resilient to potential coordinator failure and enable decentralization - two things a coordinator database can't solve.
Yes it’s all part of zerolink protocol
Tx0 is not a coinjoin txn!
Because op_return is not used in coinjoin tx but rather in tx0(transaction zero), which is not a coinjoin txn!
Also Tx0 fees are paid to the software publisher, not to the coordinator and no fee is paid during mixing, except fees that paid to miners. then tx goes to premix/postmix which belongs to your own derivation path.
Therefore op_return contains info allowing the server to verify that the fee was actually paid to an address., because sending to whirlpool means sending to your own hardened derivation path that you control. It's an anti-spoofing mechanism. If the fee is not seen in the blockchain then the inputs are not registered. It also allows to not use a static fee for address collection.
The use of op return in tx0 resilient to potential coordinator failure and enable decentralization - two things a coordinator database can't solve.
Op_return is not part of coinjoin txn!
nostr:note1zx8usyfff3xwmc67mwasuycf6dtzggrslpjwpeps7alvrf7glmjslq07pn
Такого та не может быть там, источник информации там всегда есть и этот источник называется tx0 (transaction zero), который соблюдает zerolink protocol.
А zerolink protocol соблюдает функцию того чтобы "Unmixed change" никогда не появляться в миксе даже если управление осуществляется заранее и вне смешивания, с ним следует обращаться осторожно.
Надо придумать своё слово, какое то не английское по своему.
Чё то не вижу там халвинга!
Хялвинг = новое русское слово? 🤣
Половинчатость
Each postmix has 3 or 4 Tx0 in it's mix. There are also 1 or 2 freeriders. If you want to know the exact number of Tx0s (including ancestors) associated with any postmix use Whirlpool stats tool to calculate it. Pre-mix are directly linked to tx0, NOT postmix - this is the Zerolink protocol.
https://video.nostr.build/fb3dc21eb3ef34f4488cc5edc983eeb658e0852deface125c866c48c23eec8e1.mp4
note1zx8usyfff3xwmc67mwasuycf6dtzggrslpjwpeps7alvrf7glmjslq07pn
There seems to be a fud going around about coin join and op_return
note1zx8usyfff3xwmc67mwasuycf6dtzggrslpjwpeps7alvrf7glmjslq07pn
Let’s go! Counter ocean shit show. show them how it should have started. And probably do not need $6mil of jacks money. If your action speak louder that words people will follow.
nostr:note1zx8usyfff3xwmc67mwasuycf6dtzggrslpjwpeps7alvrf7glmjslq07pn
You see it’s not a coinjoin ban. Because op_return is not used in coinjoin tx but rather in tx0(transaction zero), which is not a coinjoin txn!
Also Tx0 fees are paid to the software publisher, not to the coordinator and no fee is paid during mixing, except fees that paid to miners. then tx goes to premix/postmix which belongs to your own derivation path.
Therefore op_return contains info allowing the server to verify that the fee was actually paid to an address., because sending to whirlpool means sending to your own hardened derivation path that you control. It's an anti-spoofing mechanism. If the fee is not seen in the blockchain then the inputs are not registered. It also allows to not use a static fee for address collection.
The use of op return in tx0 resilient to potential coordinator failure and enable decentralization - two things a coordinator database can't solve.
Sure one can identify a coinjoin tx onchain but it doesn’t dox anything other than being a coinjoin tx. One cannot tell which input/output belongs to who.
It's not a bug, you just don't like op_return because it was written by a big blockin BCasher.
