> You can send up 70 UTXOs
Don't you see how consolidating these would be very bad?
Maybe you meant you can get ~70 UTXOs out from a Tx0?
> Whrilpool have no censorship
Only government can censor.
Everything else is just a private entity deciding who they do business with.
> does noy work with chainanalysis
Neither does zkSNACKs. Or do you say you are "working" with a shopkeeper when you buy something from the store?
> Its a zerolink cj and it breaks deterministic links
The protocol nopara73 (npub1qqv…0c3j) designed is being used but unfortunately, Scamourais understanding of it is similar to Roger Ver's understanding of the Bitcoin whitepaper.
Both are naively nitpicking on the wording.
Hiding the toxic change and different input values in one transaction before a coinjoin does nothing against observers, but it does cost more in mining fees.
> no address reuses or merges.
How about the consolidation of multiple toxic change outputs to join a pool?
Regarding address reuse, afaik neither implementation has them at the moment but it's a problem in both projects history. It might become a thing again in the future, like when Wasabi needs to allow payments in coinjoins.
https://twitter.com/brian_trollz/status/1283525347007442944
https://twitter.com/brian_trollz/status/1445065052118261776
BTCparadigm / Rafe
npub1g8…jgh4l
2023-03-09 20:28:33
in reply to nevent1q…mu95
Author Public Key
npub1g8hswun8cny6fhve60qyzgtl4pa438tstptpzra48ju7mmfw3wjsrjgh4lPublished at
2023-03-09 20:28:33Event JSON
{
"id": "9a44927d664d3fd1e8462b4095f5274261cbe48b28b5fb18b4562347152547f5",
"pubkey": "41ef077267c4c9a4dd99d3c041217fa87b589d705856110fb53cb9eded2e8ba5",
"created_at": 1678393713,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3d4b1353a805459d03f76f3dd876bef403a48d7351db592ef74ae3b63aba2673",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"ab3e5112f9417f424765781f029f68fbb602aac13296013ea79f626d5ec9cab9",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4857c8f167bd474fae0e7b54898d0c187ea9f1adb7ad02a9ff6a86d29abcb7ab"
],
[
"p",
"a4cb51f4618cfcd16b2d3171c466179bed8e197c43b8598823b04de266cef110"
],
[
"p",
"e88a691e98d9987c964521dff60025f60700378a4879180dcbbb4a5027850411"
],
[
"p",
"41ef077267c4c9a4dd99d3c041217fa87b589d705856110fb53cb9eded2e8ba5"
],
[
"p",
"001892e9b48b430d7e37c27051ff7bf414cbc52a7f48f451d857409ce7839dde",
"",
"mention"
]
],
"content": "\u003e You can send up 70 UTXOs\nDon't you see how consolidating these would be very bad?\nMaybe you meant you can get ~70 UTXOs out from a Tx0?\n\n\u003e Whrilpool have no censorship\nOnly government can censor.\nEverything else is just a private entity deciding who they do business with.\n\n\u003e does noy work with chainanalysis\nNeither does zkSNACKs. Or do you say you are \"working\" with a shopkeeper when you buy something from the store?\n\n\u003e Its a zerolink cj and it breaks deterministic links\nThe protocol #[6] designed is being used but unfortunately, Scamourais understanding of it is similar to Roger Ver's understanding of the Bitcoin whitepaper.\nBoth are naively nitpicking on the wording.\nHiding the toxic change and different input values in one transaction before a coinjoin does nothing against observers, but it does cost more in mining fees. \n\n\u003e no address reuses or merges.\nHow about the consolidation of multiple toxic change outputs to join a pool?\nRegarding address reuse, afaik neither implementation has them at the moment but it's a problem in both projects history. It might become a thing again in the future, like when Wasabi needs to allow payments in coinjoins.\nhttps://twitter.com/brian_trollz/status/1283525347007442944\nhttps://twitter.com/brian_trollz/status/1445065052118261776",
"sig": "47f0777a62c058cdb3f2e7ca3d4071b929b05e9549174c2761ada567b7772a9dbd1659dca8c76e9b79c8f74fcb5e5626cc830856be55b13226bacc56666c8fab"
}