Avatar
sommerfeld
d0debf9fb12def81f43d7c69429bb784812ac1e4d2d53a202db6aac7ea4b466c
Sovereignty, freedom, privacy, self-hosting and software dev 8BETLojm7zCfGV8DKKiRWLAXrFGbkZxDAgzpGmkrDvafTB18QFUg9cQ1KKDtcECrekV14yZDdGEEQbGy8ShXq1pDBVAh2Hw

I saw it from rabble. I tried it, it's still very minimal and unpolished but I definitely see the use case.

Communication layer is not exactly the issue thus far. Real problems are architectural

Replying to Avatar partof

Bullish on geese

> That can be correlated to say that 5 UTXOs lack common ownership with each other.

That's still not very useful information to have. It's not exactly a secret that it's a zerolink coinjoin.

I dont think chain analysis knowing that they might have common ownership would make it that much better.

You're right, that's definitely a possible attack vector (besides a malicious coordinator, who can just do that by only paying miner fees).

I never thought of that. But still don't understand how allowing more than 1 utxo being remixed per client would sove it... Sounds like it would just make it easier to attack

It might resurect, some people have the code saved up and are looking at the best way to redeploy without getting arrested. We'll see

Wait for something better to come along and if you need to spend privately, use monero.

Do you really think a privacy upgrade is coming to bitcoin-core when most (or all?🤔) core devs use their real names?

We need a culture shift

Your mind does not need to be changed

I can tolerate bad UX if the end result is worth it. "Maybe" privacy is not worth it

I did. That's part of the thousand hoops I mentioned

If joinmarket had samourai level UX I might give it a shot (again). But I'm not jumping through a thousand hoops just to have a considerable worse coinjoin implementation than I had with Whirlpool.

If you select the wallet you want, next time that is going to be the first one on the list.

Replying to Avatar semisol

MUST

Fork my note, we'll do the NIP right here, live.