pull down to refresh
127 sats \ 7 replies \ @launchwindow 27 Oct 2023 \ on: How would you summarize the trade-offs of Coin Join? bitcoin
Satoshi never used a coinjoin and still maintained perfect pseudonymity.
Why are you giving 5% of your sats to the coordinators anon?
Coinjoin is the dumbest psyop ever. The VC-owned coinjoin corporations like Samourai and Wasabi are rent-seeking off your privacy paranoia. Stop paying the idiot tax.
Common sense UTXO management is a better privacy tool than coinjoin, and there's no coordinator fee.
This is funny.
Satoshi never used a coinjoin and still maintained perfect pseudonymity.
When is the last time a UTXO owned by Satoshi has moved? Did Satoshi KYC? Nope. Sounds like a strawman. Also see my trade-offs comment.
Is Samourai VS owned? I don't think so. Doesn't matter to me though. That doesn't have any impact on the security/effectiveness of coin join.
reply
Why does the timeline of Satoshi's utxos matter? If he moves some sats around today to any arbitrary recipient, how would that help chainanalyzoors find his name?
Even if you buy Bitcoin on an exchange that's 100% KYC'd, all you need to protect yourself from the feds is plausible deniability that when you withdrew from the exchange you weren't in possession of the utxo. I.e. it was a gift, or it was a payment to a contractor, or it was a donation to some overseas charity.
Once you have plausible deniability that your utxos don't belong to you, then all you need is common sense UTXO management (stop consolidating everything) to prevent your utxos from being linked to one another.
PS: Samourai is definitely a VC company. There's even a publicly traded Canadian company that owns a piece of them. The fact that more people don't know this is a testament to how effective their psyop operations are.
reply
The timeline matters because you are bringing up dead UTXOs as an argument.
reply
I ask the question again though... How does SN making a payment today help chainanalyzoors find his identity though? I don't understand.
His utxos weren't always dead. We know for example that SN received and sent to Mike Hearn from 1PhUXucRd8FzQved2KGK3g1eKfTHPGjgFu - even knowing the real name/ID of his counterparty and knowing with 100% certainty that SN owned the address, we are still clueless about who SN is. How would Satoshi be any more (or less) private if he had coinjoined the balance of the address before paying Mike Hearn, and received from Mike using a paynym rather than doxxing his address?
Perfect pseudonymity. If today SN sent more bitcoin from 1PhUXucRd8FzQved2KGK3g1eKfTHPGjgFu to you or me, we would still have no idea who he is. The timeline is irrelevant.
reply
Here's the trade-off. If you make one mistake all your UTXO history is linked. That may be ok for some, it may not be for others. Bottom line is it is a tool. I will never say everyone should always coin-join. That's the point of this discussion. The trade-offs. This isn't an absolute issue. Bitcoin is not private by default. Huge myth that I will not perpetrate.
reply
I guess that's where we have a different vision. I think Bitcoin is 100% private by default (proven by the SN case study), and some users have chosen to opt in to bad privacy practices either out of ignorance or convenience. If you don't opt in to losing your privacy, then you stay private like SN did.
Anyways I appreciate the dialogue, good luck with your privacy quest! My final comment on the topic is just that VC backed coinjoins are absurdly expensive. If you must coinjoin for some weird inexplicable reason, try joinmarket.
reply
👍
reply