pull down to refresh

4 sats \ 2 replies \ @kilianbuhn OP 14 Apr 2022 \ parent \ on: Do we need protocol level Coinjoin? bitcoin
I'd argue that bigger coinjoins transactions are simpler and more elegant for a base layer?
What would be the tradeoff?
write
preview
1 sat \ 1 reply \ @k00b 14 Apr 2022
I don't know the tradeoffs but I'm also not advocating for a hard fork. Other than requiring consensus changes (which is a massive downside on its own), there are undoubtably huge tradeoffs - in UX, security, etc. e.g. Mimble Wimble Coin had a huge DoS vulnerability in its implementation.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @zuspotirko 14 Apr 2022
Which transactions get into which blocks when doesn't require a hard fork. Coinjoins are already a thing on Bitcoin.
Actually there already is a precedent for this: Miners include transactions with the highest fee before they include the oldest transactions.
reply