So after a few days of using Wasabi, my opinion and one final question at the end for #AskNostr:
Coming from Sparrow, it feels more simple. Not necessarily better. Sparrow feels more information- and option-rich in any case. Doesn't mean Wasabi os worse either.
Wasabi's coinjoin is superbly fast and easy, compared to what I was used to with Sparrow. I think it's great that they produce non-equal UTXOs, vs the all equal UTXOs of Whirpool on Sparrow.
In three days I've gotten anonimity scores of over 100, and you can get scores over 10 in mere hours. With Whirpool (at least on Sparrow), mixing was a weeks-long affair.
The fact that the output is a series of UTXOs with values totally different to the values that went in is a fantastic advantage over the all-equally valued UTXOs of Sparrow/Whirpool, at least intuitively.
Two issues that I consider very serious and problematic though:
First, the cost is completely unclear. I have no freaking idea how much this is costing me. Yes, I set the maximum miner fee to agree to participate in a round, and I know the nominal fee of the coordinator. But none of that tells me how much the whole transaction costs. Sparrow-Whirpool was totally transparent.
Second, it produces way too many small and potentially unsuable UTXOs. I mean UTXOs under 100k sats. There should be a way to set a minimum value. This really has completely fucked up my whole UTXO management strategy.
The question now, which I repeatedly asked BTCsessions (npub1rxy…hnp8) a propos of what he does in his Wasabi demo video, but he hasn't answer (probably he's muted me), is whether those small potentially useless UTXOs, and all the others really, can be consolidated onto a different wallet while keeping privacy. That's what he does in his video, but I had always understood that consolidating private UTXOs breaks privacy.
Perhaps not if it's a completely new wallet for long term storage only?
hh /
npub1s2…8dsym
2024-09-14 07:11:59
Author Public Key
npub1s277u5rww60te98w9umz6p7pjcxuus96cegdsf4y978qcqvu8jtq88dsymPublished at
2024-09-14 07:11:59Event JSON
{
"id": "0d2fba03c9cb7c3d1457c848ea8180d98cc540d2ffe610e94a6dcc9c2f4e0f37",
"pubkey": "82bdee506e769ebc94ee2f362d07c1960dce40bac650d826a42f8e0c019c3c96",
"created_at": 1726297919,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"t",
"AskNostr"
],
[
"t",
"asknostr"
],
[
"p",
"1989034e56b8f606c724f45a12ce84a11841621aaf7182a1f6564380b9c4276b"
]
],
"content": "So after a few days of using Wasabi, my opinion and one final question at the end for #AskNostr:\n\nComing from Sparrow, it feels more simple. Not necessarily better. Sparrow feels more information- and option-rich in any case. Doesn't mean Wasabi os worse either.\n\nWasabi's coinjoin is superbly fast and easy, compared to what I was used to with Sparrow. I think it's great that they produce non-equal UTXOs, vs the all equal UTXOs of Whirpool on Sparrow.\n\nIn three days I've gotten anonimity scores of over 100, and you can get scores over 10 in mere hours. With Whirpool (at least on Sparrow), mixing was a weeks-long affair.\n\nThe fact that the output is a series of UTXOs with values totally different to the values that went in is a fantastic advantage over the all-equally valued UTXOs of Sparrow/Whirpool, at least intuitively.\n\nTwo issues that I consider very serious and problematic though:\n\nFirst, the cost is completely unclear. I have no freaking idea how much this is costing me. Yes, I set the maximum miner fee to agree to participate in a round, and I know the nominal fee of the coordinator. But none of that tells me how much the whole transaction costs. Sparrow-Whirpool was totally transparent.\n\nSecond, it produces way too many small and potentially unsuable UTXOs. I mean UTXOs under 100k sats. There should be a way to set a minimum value. This really has completely fucked up my whole UTXO management strategy.\n\nThe question now, which I repeatedly asked nostr:npub1rxysxnjkhrmqd3ey73dp9n5y5yvyzcs64acc9g0k2epcpwwyya4spvhnp8 a propos of what he does in his Wasabi demo video, but he hasn't answer (probably he's muted me), is whether those small potentially useless UTXOs, and all the others really, can be consolidated onto a different wallet while keeping privacy. That's what he does in his video, but I had always understood that consolidating private UTXOs breaks privacy. \n\nPerhaps not if it's a completely new wallet for long term storage only?",
"sig": "1bbd4e967f07253f1c11211cc943e4bc930c6aae436e9583d728df3b37c024c1ea5be2f890e8d31d79dbdf3e97943d60161f6245ee7400725106c1e3df3445f7"
}