I think it makes coinjoining feel like a more inherent property of system rather than a stand alone protocol implemented in separate wallets.
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @tetsu_tamasi 11 Apr 2022
Its a good PR move.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @dergigi 11 Apr 2022
"Collaborative transaction."
A CoinJoin is not necessarily a spend in the conventional sense. Some are, e.g. PayJoins.
I am strongly in favor of saying "collaborative transactions" as often as possible, because that's what they are.
It's also useful to point out that every transaction can be understood as a "smelting" process, i.e. all inputs are destroyed, and new outputs are created. Always. Many transactions have multiple inputs and outputs, e.g. batch transactions. Collaborative transactions are a feature of Bitcoin; some collaborative transactions improve your privacy.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheBTCManual 11 Apr 2022
would that include payjoins too?
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @zuspotirko 11 Apr 2022
Can you explain the difference? I find that coinjoins are already a big step up from mixing.
Some people wish bitcoin did something with homomorphic signatures but I think these people just have a shallow understanding of cryptography or imagine it to have advantages over coinjoins that they, in fact, do not have and just want to use cool tech for the sake of cool tech.
reply
12 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 11 Apr 2022
I think it's mostly just a rebranding of coinjoin to sound less launder-ous.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 11 Apr 2022
I have the same feeling.
Anyway, on LN we have a even much better "collaborative spending"...
LN is a "infrastructure collaborative spending" machine :)
reply