pull down to refresh
10 sats \ 6 replies \ @notgeld 14 Apr 2022 \ on: Do we need protocol level Coinjoin? bitcoin
No.
Why not? What would be the disadvantage?
reply
Lean protocol (without CJ) is more decentralized and allows to build CJ on top, even variations of CJ (Samourai Wallet, Wasabi, JoinMarket).
Protocol level CJ will make blockchain heavier and less decentralized while simultaneously makes harder to build some other things on top. Imagine how much longer it will be channel opening in LN if there protocol CJ would take place.
reply
Have you read my post? Or only get angry after reading the headline?
I only want to require multi input/output transactions for transactions younger than 20 min. This wouldn't sabotage second layer solutions, nor any coinjoins wallets.
Only incentive for coinjoins. No hard fork.
reply
I am not angry.
Those who use CJ already incentivized to so something for privacy. You actually propose to tax everybody else. And another thing, less obvious, CJ needs coordination of participants so it is supposed to be overlay protocol, always. This is what I said about, it would be better for everybody to keep base layer lean.
reply
What about a privacy slider, where 1 is "fastest and the least private" and 10 is "it clears in a week"
reply
It might be non-private. Least priority transaction may mean that you know counterparty or do self-transfer.
Privacy is hard and IMO it should be a by-product of scalability like in Lightning Network.
reply