Dojo users are the most likely to initiate Tx0 and BIP47 notification transactions from their node. Therefore why would they continue connecting to nodes which won't relay them?
если есть вопросы спрашивай, все что знаю объясню.
Samourai because they use "Spam" in the op_return txn LOL pathetic. and its 46 bytes instead of his 42 on his knuts.
also because zerolink protocol works and he either does not understand it or does not want to understand that it works.
365 days ago today
December 12, 2022. Stepanakert, Artsakh.
Never Forget!
https://video.nostr.build/1a4464d8442d8aa7965912940b6f69a7e1c929329a3e5b330c8d7dcbe910ed7b.mp4
At the very beginning quite below:
"Infrastructure Spending Machine" is the method used to buy bitcoins from KYC exchanges and move them to your on-chain HODL wallets, passing through a series of "preparations" in such manner that is breaking the links to your KYC identity, for a better privacy."
One cannot break links of kyc identity. Once KYC forever kyc certein KYC exchange or entetiy knows the amount of sats your purchased or have.
So no matter what you do you cannot brake that fact of KYC to begin with.
If #bitcoin my own bank - therefore
#whirlpool is my ATM.
#BIP47 paynym is my point of sale serverless reusable payment code
Tell me which #Bitcoin wallet offers this?
If Ocean just said "Our pool, our rules. Samourai and their transactions can go fuck themselves". That would be a clear statement and sure markets will decide
But stating that 40 bytes is the standard and that Samourai should fix something is just a lie and a strange hill to die for 😆
Economically speaking you are right market will decide,
but this is a specific target because not all txn use op return.
And op return does nothing in terms of oridinal /inscriptions that he doesn’t like therefore imo this is a specific beef Luke has with certain implementation of coinjoin which requires a specific txn which is called tx0(transaction zero)
Without tx0 one cannot enter coinjoin(whirlpool try call it) and tx0 uses op_return which I described in the previous reply
This is an attack on zerolink protocol period.
banning tx0 (and not coinjoin tx, because op_return is not part of coinjoin but rather tx0. 46 vs oceans 42bytes
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.
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.
It Is not about if you don’t like use another pool. Luke saying his op_return of 42bytes is standard which is a lie. His standard for his specific fork. But in reality this is an attack on the specific implementation of coinjoin because inscriptions that he does t like do not use op_return but instead taproot to do inscriptions etc..
This is an attack on zerolink protocol period.
banning tx0 (and not coinjoin tx, because op_return is not part of coinjoin but rather tx0. 46 vs oceans 42bytes
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.
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.
You never ever even used Samourai wallet to begin with you have no idea how it works so shut the fuck up! stop spreading lies
Another misleading scumbag spews lies and have guts to lie and claim it’s verifiable on the blockchain.
Unmixed change is not part of the coinjoin period.
In fact, it's because of this lack of tx0 that you get deterministic links in mixes. The lack of segregation of unmixed change outputs -rather as part of the mix - adds to this demixing risk. That is why zerolink protocol has tx0 to segregate unmixed change from coinjoin tx.
Tx0 is not linked with postmix derivation path of Samourai wallet. That is why there is a premix derivation after tx0 happens.
You seem to have no idea why tx0 is there for.
There is no way unmixed change can end up in the coinjoin or postmix side of the wallet user must physically send that change directly to postmix derivation path.
In the Sybil attack case you mention which would be costly but then we can assume the attackers would use a special SCODE that gives them a 100% discount but then it would cost them miner fees just to perform this attack which should not be that expensive. If this is likely the case then no CJ implementation is safe since Sybil attacks like this are possible but since Whirlpool coordinator is blinded and the more you mix the higher the probability increases and the more self hosted dojo mixers join to increase your anon set would make the probability a lot harder hence why dojo server was released so to decrease the possibility of SW from hosting everyone's *pub. I have honestly not been able by myself or with the help of others who can navigate inputs/outputs to check on backwards history after even performing one mix so until I can see someone do this I will continue to use whirlpool
nostr:npub1qtvl2em0llpnnllffhat8zltugwwz97x79gfmxfz4qk52n6zpk3qq87dze banning tx0 (transaction zero) and not coinjoin tx, because op_return is not part of coinjoin but rather tx0. 46 vs oceans 42bytes
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.
If it’s not required then there ARE deterministic links, unmixed change, mixing with the same participants, mixing with yourself.